Watching the Sunday morning chat shows, as I must, I had one of those semi-coherant thoughts. Why is it every time a politician complains Washington is spending too much money, the solution is always to pass another law?
Well, OK, duh. We all know the answer to that one.
That’s when I came up with (yet another) Stupid Amendment to the Constitution. (I have a shoe box full of them.) We’ll call today’s the Enough Already Amendment, and it goes a little like this:
Congress shall pass no law or requirement without first repealing another law or requirement of approximately equal expense and length.
That oughta slow’em down for a while.
not so stupid. robert heinlein raised the posiblility of one house having that duty in “the moon is a harsh mistress”, if memory serves.
Words 6 through 20 are unnecessary.
I think “approximately equal” should be replaced by “substantially greater.” Otherwise it’s just like squeezing a tube of toothpaste with the cap on.
Not stupid at all. First though, we would have to get a Law Eradication Commission going to shred the present Federal laws and start from scratch. You can’t put band-aids on third-degree burns.
I’ve long been a fan of “There may only be 1000 Federal laws, and each law must be concise, understandable, and applicable to only one specific subject.”
Just have a requirement for a sunset provision in every law & regulation. Maybe 20 years for laws & 15 for regs. Even for murder. Then Congress will be busy having to reenact a murder statute rather than creating new mischief.
Love it, Steve. Maybe we can get rid of some of the horrid laws as of late.
Greetings:
ALL laws, excepting the basic moral legislation ie. theft, murder, rape, incest, etc., should contain a sunset clause and be revisited to determine need every five to ten years; if not reenacted the law should go away.
Nice thinking. Keep drinking. After a while the Bloody Mary’s might start to make it all seem somehow possible. Either way you wake up with a bad hangover.
I have two amendments I’d like to see considered. First, a sunset rule requiring that laws be reviewed and renewed periodically. Second, that bills be of a single subject.
Granted there would be some wrangling over what constitutes “a single subject,” but this would put an end to the practice of hiding unpopular pork in popular bills, vote buying with taxpayer dollars and larding up “must pass” legislation with a lot of pork that couldn’t get passed otherwise.
Tim —
Honestly, no matter the particular outcome, how bad would it be for major (or minor) legislation to be held up in court?
Tim, we actually do have a “single subject” rule in Ohio’s constitution. It’s only followed when the legislature wants to, and only used to invalidate a law when the Ohio S.Ct. wants to.
How about one saying that tax consumers (moochers) and those paid with tax dollars (looters) don’t get to vote. Make April 15th election day, or November 7th filing day, and your 1040 is also your ballot. Getting back more than you paid in? Nice try, so long, c’ya next time.
Or repeal the 16th amendment and institute the fair tax as explained by Boortz. Surprised no PJ sorts have interviewed him yet.