Even though I’m not too fond of guns, I recognize that the “Assault Weapons” ban of 1994 was a pointless restriction on individual freedoms that didn’t accomplish anything to prevent actual crime from happening. The light at the end of the tunnel was that this provision had a built in sunset provision.
I firmly believe that were it not for the sunset provision, sheer legislative inertia would have kept it on the books anyway. When the time came for Congress to actively reaffirm the restrictions, it declined to do so.
I think every bill that restricts individual freedoms for the “greater good” should have limited time span on it so we can find out whether the law actually works or is merely a frivolous infringement on individual liberty. Give the law ten years. If the bill turns out to be a great idea, Congress should have no problem voting to reaffirm it. If it’s a bad idea, or even a “so-so” idea, Congress won’t even bother and will allow it to die an honorable death.
To make sure this happens, there should be some sort of Constitutional requirement that every bill must be reaffirmed after a certain time frame. I’m aware that all the time Congress would need to spend reaffirming old bills may cut into their ability to make new ones, but I think they’re making too many new stupid laws to begin with so it doesn’t bother me too much.
I speak of statutory laws, not the constitution itself.
Maybe a decade is too soon. How about every 20 years? That’s about one generation. Each new generation gets to reaffirm its consent to be governed. I like the sound of that.
I agree withe Steve MB. Do you think we are suffering from a dearth of laws?
I’ll take this (rare) opportunity to agree Blalron, and endorse this proposal, although we might want to focus on a specific class of laws rather than every single law. Perhaps we would treat felonies differently, or something along those lines.
I would consider a provision to allow a law to be given an extra-long life (two or three times normal) if passed by a supermajority (two-thirds vote to pass; three-quarters to override a veto). I would require the sponsors to declare in advance and be bound by the decision (i.e. if the go for the extra-llife option and the vote is a majority but short of the supermajority, the bill is rejected; if they don’t go for it and get the supermajority, they only get the normal duration) in order to minimize frivolous use of such a provision.
It just seems like in general we have too many laws to do this effectively. I don’t see how congress could get any new business done if they’re stuck in an endless cycle of re-evaluating old laws.
But, assuming it were feasable I think it’s a great idea.
It’s 2004. The law against homicide is up for its ten year review. A partisan battle develops in which half the legislature won’t pass any version of the bill that doesn’t specifically define an unborn foetus as a person covered by the law and the other half of the legislature won’t pass any bill that does contain such an article. Neither side backs down and six months later, murder is decriminlized.
I know. Homicide is rarely a federal crime. But think about the principles involved. We elect the representatives and they pass the laws. If we don’t like the laws, we elect new representatives and they abolish the laws. It may lack a sense of immediate gratification but this is a nation not a video game.
We’re talking about new laws here, not established laws.
Like, trial periods to ensure that a law is viable, helpful, not overly restricting, and all that? Surely you are in a high enough school grade to grasp that concept, yes?
Homocide has been against the law in the U.S since before 1776, and in the rest of the world since far before that.
I think the “ten-year review” is long since passed. Sorry you missed it.
In the immortal words of Tonto, “What you mean “we”, white man?”
I’d set a date certain for the repeal of any existing laws that Congress hadn’t re-enacted (give it a fairly long clock, say thirty years, from the date the general “sunset” provision is enacted). That would give Congress sufficient time to separate the wheat from the chaff and sufficient swings of the political pendulum to find an assortment of different flavors of wheat.
I’m not too concerned about laws that are more or less universally supported slipping through the cracks. First, the overhead for those would be minimized with the “supermajority for an extra-long term” version of the proposal. Second, it would be simple enough to set up an office to give Congress a regular report listing laws that would soon expire. Third, experience with laws that do have sunsets (e.g. the “assault weapon” ban) shows that it’s easy to generate publicity, and pressure, in such cases (the AWB expired because the current membership of Congress rejected it, not because they just forgot about it).
It seems to me that the “sunset” provision would lead to too much hashing over well settled matters.
However I do think theOversight Committees who a supposed, among other things, to see how the laws are executed and how they are performing ought to be more effective and presitigious. I can’t think of a single news story about the work of such committees and I don’t know that any member of Congress fights to get on them because of their importance to the process.
I don’t think that would make any practical difference; Congress has no shame when it comes to asserting (for example) that the interstate commerce clause justifies regulation of cat hair shedding because remedies for cat dander allergies are shipped across state lines.
I think this is a good idea but I’d add a wrinkle to avoid casual tinkering. Have all laws originally passed for ten years and every time they are reenacted exactly as they are they can remain on the books for an additional five years up to a maximum of thirty years or so. A law passed today would have to be renewed in ten years and if reenacted at that point in exactly the same form it would have to renewed in fifteen years and so on.
I’d like to see some incentive to reenact as is because otherwise the Congress is more likely to get bogged down trying to keep up.
