Here’s a crazy idea - how about we set up a group of individuals to review laws? They could do it as a team, or individually? They wouldn’t review every law as it is passed and/or applied, but citizens could request that they review laws if they feel the laws are not working. Maybe they would even wear a certain costume? Like a black robe, just to make sure everyone knows they are being serious?
Just a thought.
The difference is they’re no longer in a major party. They can only gum up the works a little.
nm
Well I would not call the fathers of the teen girls a LARGE constitutency. A MOTIVATED one, to be sure, but small. Tiny. Very, very tiny.
Romeo and Juliet laws are a step in the right direction, and I AM aware of them, but I was looking for something that might prevent the problem from arising in the first place. Perhaps I am simply seeking a preventative for human folly, in which case, of course … good luck to me.
As I understand it, judges are only allowed to review laws for Constitutionality, not for whether they make sense or not.
Sorry for the hijack, but this little bit of hyperbole keeps coming back, no matter how many times its debunked:
The rest of the thread discusses more detail; the main point remains.
There isn’t a federal “murder statute” that I’m aware of. I’m pretty sure that’s an issue for the states, as most things ought to be.
Exactly! The EPA misbehaved over the last 10 years? Then they go away, or at least get a new box drawn around what they can do. ObamaCare isn’t working out like we’d hoped in 2020? We can just not renew it. The ATF has another Fast & Furious scandal? Maybe when they come up for renewal, they get the axe instead.
I don’t think the Feds can count them anymore, and I certainly can’t, but every single one. And Congress, of course, would decide, along with the President using his veto pen and potentially the SCOTUS reviewing, just how it “works” now.
P.S. I’m also open to Evil Captor’s idea of applying the sunset only to laws going forward.
It certainly worked out well for us with the AWB. <– That’s serious, not a joke or sarcasm.
I doubt very much you could properly review every single law on the books in ten years, let alone every ten years. It doesn’t matter if your idea is good or bad-it just isn’t possible.
This method of governance has more in common with borderline personality disorder than the ideals of efficient government. “Because of the Fast and Furious scandal, the Federal government will no longer have the ability to regulate the safety of liquor.” Sure, that makes sense.
I will note that there have been a fair number of calls around this board (more from the liberal side) that the debt limit is an anachronism, and that it simply doesn’t make sense for Congress to have to re-review the matter every year or so, especially considering that if Congress fails to act, disaster could strike.
Even on other laws that require periodic reauthorization, Congress has not acted with the efficiency the public should expect. Milk prices are set to double shortly because Congress can’t pass a new farm bill, thereby defaulting to a Depression-era farm law – a situation that would not be rectified even if only NEW statutes were subject to a ten year limit.
And yes, there is a Federal murder statute.
That’s one of the biggest reasons I’m interested in it. A whole bunch of laws wouldn’t be re-upped. Congress would start with the important / absolutely necessary ones, work their way down to the good ideas, but they’d have to start over again before they go to waste too much time on idiotic laws.
Fair enough, there are still plenty of cases of people caught up in sex offender regestries who clearly don’t belong there, if the aim is only to prevent serial sexual predators from re-predating.
It’s guns I don’t trust them to regulate (or not give away to the Mexican drug cartels). I don’t much care about liquor one way or the other. I’m confident that, in their absence, most states would find a way to appropriately regulate the safety of liquor.
Who is going to prioritize the laws in order of importance-you?
Yes, that’s exactly why I’m saying the concept has more to do with erratic and unpredictable behavior than good government. You only care about one issue, so you’re willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater and simply expect that someone else will fix the damage that is done.
That isn’t how large organizations work, whether we’re talking about government or corporations. When Windows 8 sucks, Microsoft doesn’t disband the whole OS division and expect things to work out better somehow. In the government realm, it took years for the Department of Homeland Security to be minimally acceptable for how it carries out its responsibilities – the idea that state governments will spontaneously leap up and be quickly effective at regulating liquor, baby food safety, airplane safety, or toxic chemicals if Congress happens to drop the ball is a prediction that has no basis in reality.
It takes years for governments of any size to take on big new responsibilities and do them adequately. That’s true of Obamacare, Medicare Part D, and many, many other examples. I do not share your faith that we can simply screw up parts of the government that are working fine and that someone will come along to fix the created problems and all will carry on normally.
Idiotic laws like the EPA? Maybe you LIKED it when the Cuyahoga River caught fire. Maybe you LIKED in when lead poisoning from gasoline drove an upsurge in crime and violence. Maybe you LIKED it when Los Angeles was permanently wreathed in smog.
The EPA is one of the best federal agencies we have, and one of the finest pieces of legislation we have written. It has been, despite its flaws, of incalculable benefit to all Americans. Deal.
Honestly, I see the EPA being one of the scope creeps you speak of. It’s original mandate is fairly well complete, and it could sit on cruise control and possibly reduce the cost to the average American in terms of taxes and maybe costs of regulation. But, instead it’s now looking to take over more “territory” and may even become increasingly detrimental to business and energy costs to stay relevant in the current political climate and avoid any shorting of funding.
It’s successes are definitely very beneficial, don’t get me wrong. But should the agency or executive it reports to decide that what it hasn’t done in 35 years it should suddenly start doing simply because the newest agency head decided on a different interpretation of it’s mandate? Even if you agree with their new goals, I think they need to wait for an act of Congress to change what they are doing into something new.
I am willing to give government agencies limited emergency powers to act outside of scope to prevent a catastrophe (or mitigate one that’s happened) but the wholesale long term change based on the whim of the agency head or the executive is specifically what I’m not a fan of.
I’m certainly no fan of rivers catching fire, and I don’t want Grizzly bears to go extinct. That being said, the EPA is NOT a successful, well-run organization in my eyes:
And the Wall Street Journal Opinion section is not an unbiased source of news in my eyes.
And that right there is the crux of the matter. Creep usually happens because a group of people think that something can be improved by expanding the mission of the law. What HurricaneDitka thinks is creep Evil Captor thinks is good policy, and vice versa. There is no practical way to avoid creep because we largely want it.
And only if someone with standing in the controversy brings it before them. Not out of their own initiative.