Doesn’t every law “cause change in society”? If my garbage pickup day goes from Saturday to Friday, that changes my routine.
Really? You think Soc Sec is an an example of a bad program?
In fairness, I think the OP is saying that Social Security should be expected to predict that it would meet certain criteria, and if it fails, it should be revised.
The really objectionable thing is that the amendment would require any law not meeting its performance measurements to stop operating until it can be modified. So let’s say Social Security was supposed to be reviewed at 10 year increments, and at some point, it fails to meet its performance measurements.
In what world is it smart to terminate all Social Security benefits until Congress can pass reforms to a very politically charged issue? Why on earth shall we hold millions of senior citizens hostage – depriving them of a key component of virtually everyone’s retirement plans for god knows how many months or years – until the law can be renegotiated and re-passed?
Since the OP cannot provide any specifics of laws that should/would be terminated under the proposed amendment, I have to chalk this up as a terrible idea for two reasons: 1) it is a great example of a political philosophy that is more concerned about making a political point than actually understanding the impact on real people; and 2) it makes the perfect the enemy of the good.
Obviously, that wouldn’t be practical. Laws which failed and which couldn’t simply die would have to include a “how to fail gracefully” section. I didn’t require a “how to fail gracefully” section in the amendment since it might not be pertinent to all laws, but perhaps I should have added a sentence saying that they could contain such and if they did, then the law would flip over to that.
These would have to have an expiration date though, at which point the law would simply disappear. A year maximum, perhaps.
28th Amendment to the United States Constitution (2.0)
Any law that is expected to cause change in society must specify the intended effects, a methodology for measuring that effect over time, and scheduled review periods. Legislation which have achieved and continue to achieve their effect will continue on as law. Legislation which has not produced an effect within or exceeding the expectations laid out will cease being law when under review and cannot be re-introduced without modification to correct the oversights of the original former legislation. Legislation may include specifications on what should happen if expectations have not been met. The law may continue for up to one year past its failure date.
Law: Enact universal health care, for now and for perpetuity.
Expected effect: provide decreased-cost health care for at least one person per each ten-year period. (Health care need not be effective.)
Oh look - the law is always effective!
The effect of 28 would be that the official estimated effects will be very conservative - bearing no resemblance to what the congressmen actually expect, much less what the tell the press and the populace. And should a program still manage to slip under the bar, what will immidately happen will be that the people who approve of the law will propose exactly the same law a second time - with the one difference of having further-reduced expected effects. Whether it passes or not will of course depend on which party is controlling the legislature at the time.
The press and the populace can read the actual text of the laws under consideration, you are aware? The president of course must be able to read it.
They’re already hyping things as going to be massively effective. It certainly doesn’t hurt if they have to write down their honest or safe expectations in the law itself, and unless they are able to write and pass the law before the press can see it, everyone’s going to have a chance to see the low number. And if they do get it through super fast and it comes out that the passed law isn’t promising like what our legislators said, the people have every option to not re-elect their representatives.