A modest proposal: All laws must have an expiration date

[Little-Acorn]

I've been wondering what we could do to cut down on the staggeringly huge accumulation of laws we have in this country. Some are exceedingly trivial, others have unintended consequences, and others are pretty unpopular, but laws almost never get repealed.

What if we had an unrepealable law (Constitutional amendment maybe? Those are VERY seldom repealed, and it takes a huge effort) that said that:

1.) All laws that are enacted, have a two-year expiration date (aka sunset date) than cannot be eliminated or changed. If Congress really likes the law, they have to renew it every two years, or it's gone.

2.) Every law must be renewed separately. Congress can't just pass something that says, "All the laws passed in 2013, are hereby renewed for another two years." It has to bring each law up individually, discuss it, vote on its renewal, and pass the renewal.

This would keep Congress busy enough with renewals, that they would have to constantly decide which laws they REALLY wanted to keep, and lose the ones they maybe don't want so much. And if they want to pass new laws, that will add to the renewal burden, enough that they would have to let some others fall off the table eventually.

This would keep the burden of laws we have to follow, reduced to just the important ones.

The Framers always had the idea that Americans could get along fine without a zillion laws telling them what to do. And the Fed govt was to be only a caretaker of matters that people usually didn't deal with much anyway - foreign relations, weights and measures, courts, law enforcement, resolving conflicts between states etc. - see Article 1 Sec. 8.

Maybe the time limit should be three years. Whatever it is, once set, it's the same for all laws, and cannot be altered or eliminated. That long after the date a law is enacted (or renewed), it is automatically repealed, unless it has been explicitly renewed for another equal time interval.

Laws that everybody obviously wants - laws against murder, against theft, etc., also get the same expiration date. And Congress would keep them at the top of the list of laws they want to renew, so those laws will always be with us. But maybe the requirement that we have certain size toilets with a certain water flow rate, can be handled fine by ordinary people, and so there's no real harm in letting the laws dictating such things fall off the books.

Advantages? Disadvantages? There are some of each, but I'd say we'd be a lot better off overall with such a law, than we are at present.

Of course, the leftist fanatics will say that anything that reduces the central govt's power is automatically bad. That's why they are leftist fanatics.

What do normal people say about it?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Do you know how many 10's of years it would take for a congress to renew every single law ever?

 

[MisterBeale]

Do you know how many 10's of years it would take for a congress to renew every single law ever?

That would be awesome, it would give them something to do and keep them from doing any more damage.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Do you know how many 10's of years it would take for a congress to renew every single law ever?

That would be awesome, it would give them something to do and keep them from doing any more damage.

It would probably create a bazillion agencies and branches whose job it was to review every law and re-propose it to congress. With tons of changes and probably all kinds of pork. Congress would vote on them without reading anything and God knows what would be passed. They won't read anything because there will have to be dozens, maybe hundreds of votes per day.

I wonder how many millions of jobs would be added to the federal payroll.

 

[sonic]

Not only would it create a nightmare of a legislative backlog, but it would confuse the hell out of the American people, not to mention the legal system. Can you imagine the courts trying cases not knowing what will and won't be a law at any given time?

 

[Pete7469]

There should be a third chamber in congress that can repeal any law with a 51-49 vote and it should be their only job.

It should be the highest paying job in government and an office up for election yearly.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Do you know how many 10's of years it would take for a congress to renew every single law ever?

It would depend on how many laws there are.

Thanks for agreeing that we have far too many, as I said in the OP.

Once we get them cut down to size, then Congress can budget how much time they want to spend renewing laws, and how much time making new ones (which will add to their renewal tasks in a few years).

Pretty soon we'll be down to the laws that are obviously good, and that the country genuinely needs. The rest can expire when due.

At that point, people will pretty well know which laws will still be around in five or ten or fifty years.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It would probably create a bazillion agencies and branches whose job it was to review every law and re-propose it to congress. With tons of changes and probably all kinds of pork. Congress would vote on them without reading anything and God knows what would be passed.

Until they started letting genuinely good laws expire. When people found it was no longer illegal to charge duties on good crossing state borders (as an example), they'll start wondering what Congress has been doing... and throwing out the ones who blew it.
Sure, it would be hectic for a while. But the long-term result would be FAR better than what we have now.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Thanks for agreeing that we have far too many, as I said in the OP.
Once we get them cut down to size, then Congress can budget how much time they want to spend renewing laws, and how much time making new ones (which will add to their renewal tasks in a few years).
Pretty soon we'll be down to the laws that are obviously good, and that the country genuinely needs. The rest can expire when due.
At that point, people will pretty well know which laws will still be around in five or ten or fifty years.

No. Your idea is retarded.

TRANSLATION: I don't dare examine the good vs. the bad of this idea. Because then I'd find that I was completely wrong and the conservative was right. Can't let that happen. So I'll keep smearing him, calling him names, calling his idea names, and try to fool people into thinking I'm right anyway.

Considering it fairly is O - U - T out.

 

[TheOldSchool]

It would probably create a bazillion agencies and branches whose job it was to review every law and re-propose it to congress. With tons of changes and probably all kinds of pork. Congress would vote on them without reading anything and God knows what would be passed.

Until they started letting genuinely good laws expire. When people found it was no longer illegal to charge duties on good crossing state borders (as an example), they'll start wondering what Congress has been doing... and throwing out the ones who blew it.
Sure, it would be hectic for a while. But the long-term result would be FAR better than what we have now.

So naive

 

[Little-Acorn]

Looks like the usual liberal fanatics cannot (or dare not) consider the good points vs. bad points of laws having expiration dates. All they can do is screech about how difficult it would be to get such a thing started. And their excuse? Why, we have far too many laws!!!

Back to the subject:
If Congress constantly had to choose which laws they would renew and which they didn't have time to renew, we would (finally) end up with a body of laws that would get better and better (i.e. controlling only things that MUST be controlled), with irrelevant or abusive laws left to wither on the vine.

It would correct one of the most grievous characteristcs of our current government: Regulations and restrictions keep piling up, and no one ever stops to decide if so many are really necessary.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

I've been wondering what we could do to cut down on the staggeringly huge accumulation of laws we have in this country. Some are exceedingly trivial, others have unintended consequences, and others are pretty unpopular, but laws almost never get repealed.

What if we had an unrepealable law (Constitutional amendment maybe? Those are VERY seldom repealed, and it takes a huge effort) that said that:

1.) All laws that are enacted, have a two-year expiration date (aka sunset date) than cannot be eliminated or changed. If Congress really likes the law, they have to renew it every two years, or it's gone.

2.) Every law must be renewed separately. Congress can't just pass something that says, "All the laws passed in 2013, are hereby renewed for another two years." It has to bring each law up individually, discuss it, vote on its renewal, and pass the renewal.

This would keep Congress busy enough with renewals, that they would have to constantly decide which laws they REALLY wanted to keep, and lose the ones they maybe don't want so much. And if they want to pass new laws, that will add to the renewal burden, enough that they would have to let some others fall off the table eventually.

This would keep the burden of laws we have to follow, reduced to just the important ones.

The Framers always had the idea that Americans could get along fine without a zillion laws telling them what to do. And the Fed govt was to be only a caretaker of matters that people usually didn't deal with much anyway - foreign relations, weights and measures, courts, law enforcement, resolving conflicts between states etc. - see Article 1 Sec. 8.

Maybe the time limit should be three years. Whatever it is, once set, it's the same for all laws, and cannot be altered or eliminated. That long after the date a law is enacted (or renewed), it is automatically repealed, unless it has been explicitly renewed for another equal time interval.

Laws that everybody obviously wants - laws against murder, against theft, etc., also get the same expiration date. And Congress would keep them at the top of the list of laws they want to renew, so those laws will always be with us. But maybe the requirement that we have certain size toilets with a certain water flow rate, can be handled fine by ordinary people, and so there's no real harm in letting the laws dictating such things fall off the books.

Advantages? Disadvantages? There are some of each, but I'd say we'd be a lot better off overall with such a law, than we are at present.

Of course, the leftist fanatics will say that anything that reduces the central govt's power is automatically bad. That's why they are leftist fanatics.

What do normal people say about it?

It would take too long to renew laws. Plus do you really want to take a chance that one idiotic liberals might decide that well laws against having sex with children they are so antiquated, for example?

We do of course have WAY too many laws in this country. The solution is to remove all laws which make shit that harms no one from the books.

For example.

How is prostitution illegal, but if you film it and call it porn, that's legal? Who cares if a woman wants to sell her body, it's HER body. Now if you go onto the topic of human trafficking, that's a different matter altogether, clearly you don't have a right to sell another person's body.

And on and on and on we could go.

 

[Little-Acorn]

We do of course have WAY too many laws in this country.

Looks like many people, even liberals, agree with this.

The solution is to remove all laws which make shit that harms no one from the books.

Plus the laws that do more harm than good.

Which removing them has almost NEVER been done. So your suggestion is useless.

Under my modest proposal, it would be done. Finally.

 

[Katzndogz]

There should be a third chamber in congress that can repeal any law with a 51-49 vote and it should be their only job.

It should be the highest paying job in government and an office up for election yearly.

Then no one would ever do any work at all. Running for reelection would start at the moment of election.

 

[CremeBrulee]

Congress has enough trouble passing laws now with all of the partisan gridlock. The harm done after laws expire and before they are renewed would be tremendous. Your scenario sets the stage for the theme of the movie The Purge.

 

[Pete7469]

Then no one would ever do any work at all. Running for reelection would start at the moment of election.

Perhaps make it a body appointed by each state legislature, like the US Senate was before the 17th Amendment. Or just repeal that "progressive" amendment altogether so that the adults run the asylum rather than fat turds who vote for hand outs.

Just trying to think back in the box I guess.

 

[frigidweirdo]

I've been wondering what we could do to cut down on the staggeringly huge accumulation of laws we have in this country. Some are exceedingly trivial, others have unintended consequences, and others are pretty unpopular, but laws almost never get repealed.

What if we had an unrepealable law (Constitutional amendment maybe? Those are VERY seldom repealed, and it takes a huge effort) that said that:

1.) All laws that are enacted, have a two-year expiration date (aka sunset date) than cannot be eliminated or changed. If Congress really likes the law, they have to renew it every two years, or it's gone.

2.) Every law must be renewed separately. Congress can't just pass something that says, "All the laws passed in 2013, are hereby renewed for another two years." It has to bring each law up individually, discuss it, vote on its renewal, and pass the renewal.

This would keep Congress busy enough with renewals, that they would have to constantly decide which laws they REALLY wanted to keep, and lose the ones they maybe don't want so much. And if they want to pass new laws, that will add to the renewal burden, enough that they would have to let some others fall off the table eventually.

This would keep the burden of laws we have to follow, reduced to just the important ones.

The Framers always had the idea that Americans could get along fine without a zillion laws telling them what to do. And the Fed govt was to be only a caretaker of matters that people usually didn't deal with much anyway - foreign relations, weights and measures, courts, law enforcement, resolving conflicts between states etc. - see Article 1 Sec. 8.

Maybe the time limit should be three years. Whatever it is, once set, it's the same for all laws, and cannot be altered or eliminated. That long after the date a law is enacted (or renewed), it is automatically repealed, unless it has been explicitly renewed for another equal time interval.

Laws that everybody obviously wants - laws against murder, against theft, etc., also get the same expiration date. And Congress would keep them at the top of the list of laws they want to renew, so those laws will always be with us. But maybe the requirement that we have certain size toilets with a certain water flow rate, can be handled fine by ordinary people, and so there's no real harm in letting the laws dictating such things fall off the books.

Advantages? Disadvantages? There are some of each, but I'd say we'd be a lot better off overall with such a law, than we are at present.

Of course, the leftist fanatics will say that anything that reduces the central govt's power is automatically bad. That's why they are leftist fanatics.

What do normal people say about it?

Then again you'd be having so many problems having to look at the laws again. Every 2 years seems a little too heavy. You'd never get anything new.

I mean, something over a 20 year period might be better. But then again many laws would just get resigned for no reason at all.

So it might not have much of an impact at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Then no one would ever do any work at all. Running for reelection would start at the moment of election.

Perhaps make it a body appointed by each state legislature, like the US Senate was before the 17th Amendment. Or just repeal that "progressive" amendment altogether so that the adults run the asylum rather than fat turds who vote for hand outs.

Just trying to think back in the box I guess.

How about this. Instead of voting FPTP, change to PR, this will increase the number of political parties, increase the effectiveness of a person's vote, take away the control of the main two parties some what, allow for coalition government.

And for the president have a French run off system, vote twice, (or have a number system, 1 for your preferred candidate, 2 for the next etc.) and therefore the people's will be found in voting again.

Then the law makers will be ore interested in THE PEOPLE and not corporate nonsense.

It's really the only solution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Looks like the usual liberal fanatics cannot (or dare not) consider the good points vs. bad points of laws having expiration dates. All they can do is screech about how difficult it would be to get such a thing started. And their excuse? Why, we have far too many laws!!!

Back to the subject:
If Congress constantly had to choose which laws they would renew and which they didn't have time to renew, we would (finally) end up with a body of laws that would get better and better (i.e. controlling only things that MUST be controlled), with irrelevant or abusive laws left to wither on the vine.

It would correct one of the most grievous characteristcs of our current government: Regulations and restrictions keep piling up, and no one ever stops to decide if so many are really necessary.

Looks like another ridiculous rightwing thread that fails as a straw man fallacy.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Then no one would ever do any work at all. Running for reelection would start at the moment of election.

Perhaps make it a body appointed by each state legislature, like the US Senate was before the 17th Amendment. Or just repeal that "progressive" amendment altogether so that the adults run the asylum rather than fat turds who vote for hand outs.

Just trying to think back in the box I guess.

How about this. Instead of voting FPTP, change to PR, this will increase the number of political parties, increase the effectiveness of a person's vote, take away the control of the main two parties some what, allow for coalition government.

And for the president have a French run off system, vote twice, (or have a number system, 1 for your preferred candidate, 2 for the next etc.) and therefore the people's will be found in voting again.

Then the law makers will be ore interested in THE PEOPLE and not corporate nonsense.

It's really the only solution.

Disagree.

Real change can occur only at the very local level, not the top down, and not by rearranging the governmental deck chairs.

The people alone are responsible for the good – or bad – government they get.

Our current form of government is perfectly appropriate, that the people are incapable – or unwilling – to use it as designed does not warrant its abandonment.