If we had a constitutional amendment that would sunset ALL laws every 5 years, we could stop the insanity. Instead of laws from here to Hell, only important laws would be re-passed every 5 years. In this way people might actually be able to know what the law is. I mean, isn't it a load of crap to be told "ignorance of the law is no excuse" when there are more laws passed every year than you could read if that was ALL you did, on top of all the existing laws? This also would reduce selective enforcement. It would solve prison overcrowding, as well as end the shame of having so many good people labeled criminals in the "land of the free". The campfire that was our government has become a forest fire.

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

It's a post 9/11 world.

I've thought about this, and I came up with this idea: New Government Regulating Agency - Fourth Branch of Government

I figured that if every single bill were like that, then congress would eventually stop doing their job and have to deal with those annoying things all 50 or so days our of the year that they work. So I thought it would be nice (for them, and maybe us) to have a whole new branch that acted like a business consultant. They'd check up on the progress, see if they met goals, audit them to make sure that they're not corrupt... Basically, I'm not liberal, but if people are going to propose outrageous liberal ideas, I want something to make sure that all the stuff they put into place actually works.

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

I'm not sure that it would actually make anything easier. Instead of having a whole bunch of laws on the books, you are left with a whole bunch of laws that you can't count on existing for more than 5 years. Sounds rather unstable, especially for the economy. I'm not saying it's good to have a million laws, but there is something to be said for stability. People would have to relearn all the laws every 5 years, and every 5 years they could change.

Simplify the laws? Sure. Make resources that summarize and organize the laws for the average person? Absolutely. Perhaps come up with some review process for the laws like Raharu Haruha came up with? That might be good too. But a sunset on all laws seems too chaotic. Laws are meant to give stability and predictability to society.

__________________
True knowledge exists in knowing what you don't know.

It started as a limited government i wonder what happened?

Actually a very intelligent idea.

I'd also put importance on a bill that is always proposed that says the you have to put in the bill how it doesn't infringe on the Constitution.

I think the idea has some merit but every 5 years ? we can not get jack schitt done now maybe every 10 years .

__________________
Aint but three things in this world thats worth a solitary dime,
But old dogs and children and watermelon wine.
Tom T. Hall
http://www.obamatruth.org/

I actually should clarify. I meant 5 years from each law's passage, not a clean slate every 5 years all at once. I also was referring only to the Federal constitution and hence, only federal laws. This would restore power to the states. And if we also include a clause that the lawmakers must read the bills in their entirety before passage, we could ensure that they can't pass them so fast that they can't be read. For those who want "stability" in government, I think the best way to stabilize it is to reduce the harm it can do.

Actually big government is what we call liberal in America nowadays. The idea of a limited, decentralized government is completely "paleo-" conservative.

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

It's a post 9/11 world.

The reviewing of laws every year would cost more money for the short term as Congress appointed commitee after commitee looking over laws and would shrinken the control of lawmaking to a slect few, whoever were on the commitee and concentration of power is not good.

However eventually it could work but it could go horribly wrong and cost more plus adding more corruption as well....

__________________
'May no obstacles arise on the path of enlightenment!
May the enlightened intention of Those Gone to Bliss, past, present and future, be realised,
May I neither be bewildered in migratory existence
Nor I lulled by the solitary quiescence [of nirvana]!
But may I liberate beings throughout the expanse of space!'

- Tibetan Book of the Dead by Padmasambhava

So what you're saying is that liberals want big government, and conservatives want smaller government?

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.

So what you're saying is that it could be good or it could be bad?

__________________
So your logic is that if we are not there, the number will go down... That makes perfect sense... not.