8 ms·

Who knows how many outdated regulations are still on the books? It seems the thing to do would be hire interns to start scouring for every "A married woman sha

by dharmon 10y ago

Who knows how many outdated regulations are still on the books? It seems the thing to do would be hire interns to start scouring for every "A married woman shall not chop down a birchwood tree on the day of her wedding while wearing her bridal gown" style law. If this idea persisted for 50 years maybe they'd have to start repealing actual relevant regulations.

kbenson 10y ago
> It seems the thing to do would be higher interns to start scouring for every "A married woman shall not chop down a birchwood tree on the day of her wedding while wearing her bridal gown" style law. Sure, but how many of those exist at a federal level? Those are often city, county and sometimes state regulations.
- dharmon 10y ago
  That's the important question. If the answer is, "not that many", then this would probably lead to gridlock. Not the worst outcome, I guess.
  - mywittyname 10y ago
    Basically the continuation of the last six years of Congress.
    - trav4225 10y ago
      Congress was, in part, designed for gridlock.
    - nickff 10y ago
      The past few Congresses have done a good job of passing large numbers of resolutions, but the President has not been signing them into law.[1] It seems to me that the 'problem' (if you believe there should be more laws) is a disagreement between branches or obstinancy by the President. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
  - kbenson 10y ago
    > Not the worst outcome, I guess. It's both comical and sad that I think you're correct in that assessment, but only because it's been so gridlocked already, that it's just the continuation of what we know and what we know it to be pretty shitty.
  - vidarh 10y ago
    It will just lead to lawmakers getting more creative about merging laws together into monstrosities that meets the "quota" without actually achieving any real change and/or that uses the oportunity to expand the reach.
- nkw 10y ago
  https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074 Those are just from randomly clicking around Title 18 which are actual crimes. When you get into regulations you end up going through stuff like this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/143.6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/143.6 Yes the "repeal two regulations before imposing one" is just a gimmick, but there are an insane number of federal laws and regulations that are, at best, unneeded.
  - rattray 10y ago
    Hmm, I don't know how many of those truly are unneeded, at least without context on why they were created in the first place. There may have been real problems with the Water Hyacinths as an invasive or endangered species, for example. And we certainly don't want to make it legal for people to change traffic signals at will! I had actually expected to find oodles of needless cruft and "dead code", but I'm starting to think that it might be possible that most regulation is there for a reason... who'd a thunk it!
    - zigzigzag 10y ago
      The question is more one of costs and benefits. Anyone can argue a regulation is useful in the abstract. There's a lot of regulation around internet services and people under the age of 13. The primary effect of these rules has been that American internet services ask for your DoB and then ineffectively try to ban you from signing up if you say you're under 13. Do parents really need this?
rayiner 10y ago
I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. Regulations are constantly being codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. It's about 175,000 pages. It's printed at about 55 lines per page, which makes it about 10 million lines. About the same size as the Linux kernel. That's big, but it's not "we don't even know what's in here" big.
- dharmon 10y ago
  Cool. Thanks for the info. I just assumed that over 250 years some cruft was inevitable.
- Alupis 10y ago
  > I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. There are entire books written filled with silly, outdated, or absurd laws and regulations (both federal and state). Here's just a taste[1]: > 18 USC §1382 & 32 CFR §636.28(g)(iv) make it a federal crime to ride a moped into Fort Stewart without wearing long trousers. > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) make it a crime to wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fish-washing faucet, in a national forest. > 21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d) make it a crime to sell "Turkey Ham" as "Ham Turkey" or with the words "Turkey" and "Ham" in different fonts > 18 USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC. [1] http://www.freedomworks.org/content/19-ridiculous-federal-criminal-laws-and-regulations http://www.freedomworks.org/content/19-ridiculous-federal-cr...
  - ccallebs 10y ago
    > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) That should absolutely still be on the books. You'd have people cleaning fish in bathrooms.
    - geofft 10y ago
      It's also an inaccurate summary: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.16 "The following are prohibited: (c) Cleaning or washing any personal property, fish, animal, or food, or bathing or washing at a hydrant or water faucet not provided for that purpose." This is the sort of thing that would just be a normal rule, in a contract or something, in a privately-managed park. For a federal park, it's perfectly reasonable for it to just be a federal law. You could also imagine a world where it's simply illegal to be in a federal park without signing a contract with the government, which would get these sorts of things out of the CFR, but that seems like it would be worse for the American people at zero benefit. And personally, I'd still call things in those contracts "federal regulations". You could also imagine a world where national parks become privatized.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

by dharmon 10y ago

kbenson 10y ago

> It seems the thing to do would be higher interns to start scouring for every "A married woman shall not chop down a birchwood tree on the day of her wedding while wearing her bridal gown" style law. Sure, but how many of those exist at a federal level? Those are often city, county and sometimes state regulations.

dharmon 10y ago
That's the important question. If the answer is, "not that many", then this would probably lead to gridlock. Not the worst outcome, I guess.
- mywittyname 10y ago
  Basically the continuation of the last six years of Congress.
  - trav4225 10y ago
    Congress was, in part, designed for gridlock.
  - nickff 10y ago
    The past few Congresses have done a good job of passing large numbers of resolutions, but the President has not been signing them into law.[1] It seems to me that the 'problem' (if you believe there should be more laws) is a disagreement between branches or obstinancy by the President. [1] https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics
- kbenson 10y ago
  > Not the worst outcome, I guess. It's both comical and sad that I think you're correct in that assessment, but only because it's been so gridlocked already, that it's just the continuation of what we know and what we know it to be pretty shitty.
- vidarh 10y ago
  It will just lead to lawmakers getting more creative about merging laws together into monstrosities that meets the "quota" without actually achieving any real change and/or that uses the oportunity to expand the reach.
nkw 10y ago
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/711 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/707 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/710 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/46 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2285 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1716E https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1730 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1762 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/39 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2074 Those are just from randomly clicking around Title 18 which are actual crimes. When you get into regulations you end up going through stuff like this: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/143.6 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/143.6 Yes the "repeal two regulations before imposing one" is just a gimmick, but there are an insane number of federal laws and regulations that are, at best, unneeded.
- rattray 10y ago
  Hmm, I don't know how many of those truly are unneeded, at least without context on why they were created in the first place. There may have been real problems with the Water Hyacinths as an invasive or endangered species, for example. And we certainly don't want to make it legal for people to change traffic signals at will! I had actually expected to find oodles of needless cruft and "dead code", but I'm starting to think that it might be possible that most regulation is there for a reason... who'd a thunk it!
  - zigzigzag 10y ago
    The question is more one of costs and benefits. Anyone can argue a regulation is useful in the abstract. There's a lot of regulation around internet services and people under the age of 13. The primary effect of these rules has been that American internet services ask for your DoB and then ineffectively try to ban you from signing up if you say you're under 13. Do parents really need this?

rayiner 10y ago

I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. Regulations are constantly being codified into the Code of Federal Regulations. It's about 175,000 pages. It's printed at about 55 lines per page, which makes it about 10 million lines. About the same size as the Linux kernel. That's big, but it's not "we don't even know what's in here" big.

dharmon 10y ago
Cool. Thanks for the info. I just assumed that over 250 years some cruft was inevitable.
Alupis 10y ago
> I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. There are entire books written filled with silly, outdated, or absurd laws and regulations (both federal and state). Here's just a taste[1]: > 18 USC §1382 & 32 CFR §636.28(g)(iv) make it a federal crime to ride a moped into Fort Stewart without wearing long trousers. > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) make it a crime to wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fish-washing faucet, in a national forest. > 21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d) make it a crime to sell "Turkey Ham" as "Ham Turkey" or with the words "Turkey" and "Ham" in different fonts > 18 USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC. [1] http://www.freedomworks.org/content/19-ridiculous-federal-criminal-laws-and-regulations http://www.freedomworks.org/content/19-ridiculous-federal-cr...
- ccallebs 10y ago
  > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) That should absolutely still be on the books. You'd have people cleaning fish in bathrooms.
  - geofft 10y ago
    It's also an inaccurate summary: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.16 "The following are prohibited: (c) Cleaning or washing any personal property, fish, animal, or food, or bathing or washing at a hydrant or water faucet not provided for that purpose." This is the sort of thing that would just be a normal rule, in a contract or something, in a privately-managed park. For a federal park, it's perfectly reasonable for it to just be a federal law. You could also imagine a world where it's simply illegal to be in a federal park without signing a contract with the government, which would get these sorts of things out of the CFR, but that seems like it would be worse for the American people at zero benefit. And personally, I'd still call things in those contracts "federal regulations". You could also imagine a world where national parks become privatized.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]