ummm. since they were capable of it and decided they needed it. You're talking to an accountant, internal controls are my life, lol

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

That or the Bill of Rights within the DOC.

__________________
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

And he said, Verily I say unto you, No prophet is accepted in his own country.

Kind of a neat idea but I think the reason we have so many laws is to try and make everyone happy. If we re-passed only the important laws every 5 years I don't think anyone could really agree on what is and isn't important.

That, to me, is the main problem with the idea. If the goal was to limit the number of laws on the book, sure, this might do it... but I don't think that is you're ultimate goal. Your ultimate goal seems to be the restoration of power to the states... but you don't know how the congress will prioritize their laws... what they "agree on is and isn't important". Nothing you said limits their scope of power, only possibly the time they have to implement it. Why not get to the point and limit their scope of power? No need to beat around the bush.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Yea, but I'm sure those people will be just as incompetent and corrupt as the ones that are making the unnecessary laws. I'm just very skeptical.

To be honest I don't think it's that the federal government pushes to take power from the states who would supposedly otherwise step up.
I think the states and localities enjoy giving more responsibility (and more of the bills) to the federal government. You can count on that with at least most of the states (all that aren't donor states).
Sure they'll whine about states' rights when politically convenient, but overall they benefit by passing the buck.
How can federal taxes being higher than state taxes... while still providing the services taxpayers demand... be anything other than good from the state politician's point of view.

__________________
"Man lives in the sunlit world of that which he believes to be reality. But unseen by most is an underworld, a place that is just as real... but not as brightly lit... A DARK SIDE!"
-opening from Tales From the Darkside

The coolness of the idea, which people haven't picked up on, is that We the People would get to make reviews on federal laws by electing those people who support (or oppose) the renewal of certain laws. If, for instance, you think the Federal Reserve Act which we've been saddled with since 1913 needs to go, elect people who campaign on not renewing it. This would shift the substance of campaigns from "what new laws am I going to pass" to "what laws will I get rid of". It is really just a mandatory periodic consideration of repeal for laws that may be considered obsolete or just bad. But it allows the people to vote more directly for getting rid of certain laws, and just makes it easier to get rid of them. If they can't reach enough of a consensus to keep something a law every 5 years, it probably wasn't a good or necessary law to begin with.

__________________
War is Peace.
Freedom is Slavery.
Ignorance is Strength.

It's a post 9/11 world.

I've picked up on the coolness, I just think it comes at a heavy price... namely stability. I think it's good to review laws, just that it's a step to far to force them to be reviewed every 5 years or they're out. The fact that the whims of the people would be so represented as you said through campaigning for what to get rid of makes me all the more nervous. I'm all for a government for and by the people, but I think the founders had the right idea when they made our government cumbersome and difficult to change. It's a balance of stability and predictability vs the will and whim of the electorate.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

I would be far more in favor of it if we changed "5 years" to "50 years."

__________________
You don't have to pretend to like someone just because you are voting for him.

I agree.... I think that that's not too short as to be chaotic and unpredictable, and not too long as to make people complacent with the law. maybe even a little shorter than 50. I might even go as low as 15 or 20. Maybe less for "new" laws.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.