A modest proposal: A new law that requires all laws to 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exceedingly trivial, others have unintended consequences, and others are pretty unpopular, but laws almost never get repealed.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 Those are VERY seldom repealed, and it takes a huge effort) that said that: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, 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 That long after the date a law is enacted, it is automatically repealed, unless it has been explicitly renewed for another equal time interval.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.

What do you think of the idea?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

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, 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, 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.

What do you think of the idea? Idea looks good but reality is it would most likely cause massive chaos and political wrangling that would ill serve the Republic IMHO. It would not go towards limiting government power nor scaling back its massive size. Now should it be applied to all new laws that are passed after its approved then I'd think it had greater promise. -Tyr

[Little-Acorn]

Idea looks good but reality is it would most likely cause massive chaos and political wrangling that would ill serve the Republic IMHO.
And that is different from the present situation how... ?


It would not go towards limiting government power nor scaling back its massive size.
In fact, it would do exactly that. If/when it were implemented. Only problem is, it won't be implemented. But if it were, that would be the result. That, plus the political wrangling you mentioned... which is nothing out of the ordinary.


Now should it be applied to all new laws that are passed after its approved then I'd think it had greater promise. -Tyr
In that case, it would not go toward limiting government power nor scaling back its massive size.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And that is different from the present situation how... ?


In fact, it would do exactly that. If/when it were implemented. Only problem is, it won't be implemented. But if it were, that would be the result. That, plus the political wrangling you mentioned... which is nothing out of the ordinary.


In that case, it would not go toward limiting government power nor scaling back its massive size. You make some obviously valid points amigo. I'll have to reconsider my earlier hardline judgment for some alterations.. .. :beer:-Tyr

[hjmick]

Would the law establishing laws must have an expiration date also have an expiration date?

[aboutime]

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, 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, 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.

What do you think of the idea?



Little-Acorn. In theory. It's a good idea. BUT.....Look at how often, and how many present day laws are IGNORED, NOT ENFORCED as it is.
If someone doesn't like a law, and they continue to break laws. The time it takes to bring them to court, due to waiting time, and lawyer tactics already in place.
WHY HAVE ANY LAWS AT ALL?

If people know LAWS can be rejected, or lost through term limits.
The end result will be ANARCHY, and eventual MOB RULE.

Is that what more than 300 Million people need these days...with a Lousy Congress, Justice System, and Idiot in the WHITE HOUSE??

And WHO would decide WHICH LAWS are the IMPORTANT ones?


OBAMA, REID, PELOSI...and PUTIN?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would the law establishing laws must have an expiration date also have an expiration date? :beer: :salute: :beer:.....Tyr

[gabosaurus]

What do you think of the idea?

Obviously you want more government interference in our lives. Right?

[Little-Acorn]

Would the law establishing laws must have an expiration date also have an expiration date?

No.

[Little-Acorn]

Little-Acorn. In theory. It's a good idea. BUT.....Look at how often, and how many present day laws are IGNORED, NOT ENFORCED as it is.
If someone doesn't like a law, and they continue to break laws. The time it takes to bring them to court, due to waiting time, and lawyer tactics already in place.
WHY HAVE ANY LAWS AT ALL?

If people know LAWS can be rejected, or lost through term limits.
The end result will be ANARCHY, and eventual MOB RULE.

Is that what more than 300 Million people need these days...with a Lousy Congress, Justice System, and Idiot in the WHITE HOUSE??

And WHO would decide WHICH LAWS are the IMPORTANT ones?


OBAMA, REID, PELOSI...and PUTIN?

This proposal is not designed to cure all the country's ills in one swell foop.

Only some of them.

Don't let the fact that it still leaves a few problems in place, make you think it's not worth the problems it WILL cure.

So, what do you think?

[aboutime]

This proposal is not designed to cure all the country's ills in one swell foop.

Only some of them.

Don't let the fact that it still leaves a few problems in place, make you think it's not worth the problems it WILL cure.

So, what do you think?


Honestly? Since I cannot trust anyone in any of the THREE BRANCHES of our government in Washington today.

I cannot, honestly be convinced any of what you suggested will EVER take place fairly, or honestly.

There is a lack of ETHICS across the board, and near total disregard for the Constitution (LAWS) today.

Somehow. I feel as if we are all being subjected to the tactics that took place in 1930-40's Europe. Silently watching our freedoms, liberty, and rights being intentionally eroded...without anyone who has COURAGE to do anything about it...due to fears of being destroyed politically.

In other words. WE'RE IN A HEAP OF CRAP, AND WE'RE ALL BEING SCREWED....since we have no LEADERS.