5 ms·

An easier and more robust solution is to have expiring laws. Laws require a 'refresh' 2, 4 and then each 8 years after they're passed. If at any point they do n

An easier and more robust solution is to have expiring laws. Laws require a 'refresh' 2, 4 and then each 8 years after they're passed. If at any point they do not receive the a majority vote, they're scrapped. So many laws scrape through as the result of extreme "lobbying" and "productive donations". This investment of time and money is rewarded by the fact that once laws are passed they are extremely rarely overturned. Expiring laws would also help work against this sort of corruption. It would also help with things like the 'Patriot Act.' That bill was passed when the country was in a state of mindless panic, yet it lingers today. The government doesn't want to get rid of it since it massively expands their power, but at the same time - if they actually had to vote on it again, it would be extremely difficult to justify. And finally it might make our legal code begin to be somewhat comprehensible. That you, without question, need to be a professional just to understand our legal code. And that even within that profession there are countless areas of expertise -- that is quite absurd. How can people be expected to obey (or critique) a system of law that they are in no way expected to have even the faintest grasp of, other than in the most broad meaningless strokes?

jessriedel 8y ago
Making laws sunset (except, say, with a supermajority) is one of my favorite hypothetical amendments, but I think it's arguably even more revolutionary than court review of non-challenged laws...
xyzzyz 8y ago
It would also help with things like the 'Patriot Act.' That bill was passed when the country was in a state of mindless panic, yet it lingers today. The government doesn't want to get rid of it since it massively expands their power, but at the same time - if they actually had to vote on it again, it would be extremely difficult to justify. Is this some kind of sarcasm I'm not getting? PATRIOT Act in fact had expiring provisions, and government in fact did vote to extend it, three times actually.
- TangoTrotFox 8y ago
  I'm unclear on the specifics of the patriot act, and I think that's to be expected. The reason is that whatever provisions may or may not expire are then wrapped up in enormous new bills which expand some, modify others, and generally make everything absolutely incomprehensible while being packed up in a new goofy name like the 'Freedom Act.' The whole thing helps to obfuscate things beyond belief as opposed to having a simple yes/no vote on maintaining or scrapping a bill.
- mobilefriendly 8y ago
  Correct, this was a HUGE fight at the time, House Majority Leader Dick Armey fought his own party to include the expiring provision, and if memory serves some parts of the Patriot Act were not renewed.
toast0 8y ago
> An easier and more robust solution is to have expiring laws. Laws require a 'refresh' 2, 4 and then each 8 years after they're passed. If at any point they do not receive the a majority vote, they're scrapped. I guess the question this proposal raises is if congress would actually review the laws, or just blanket renew everything, except when they're exceptionally dysfunctional. If the renewal comes late, does it still count as a renewal or is a new law, starting at 2 years?

jessriedel 8y ago

Making laws sunset (except, say, with a supermajority) is one of my favorite hypothetical amendments, but I think it's arguably even more revolutionary than court review of non-challenged laws...

xyzzyz 8y ago

It would also help with things like the 'Patriot Act.' That bill was passed when the country was in a state of mindless panic, yet it lingers today. The government doesn't want to get rid of it since it massively expands their power, but at the same time - if they actually had to vote on it again, it would be extremely difficult to justify. Is this some kind of sarcasm I'm not getting? PATRIOT Act in fact had expiring provisions, and government in fact did vote to extend it, three times actually.

TangoTrotFox 8y ago
I'm unclear on the specifics of the patriot act, and I think that's to be expected. The reason is that whatever provisions may or may not expire are then wrapped up in enormous new bills which expand some, modify others, and generally make everything absolutely incomprehensible while being packed up in a new goofy name like the 'Freedom Act.' The whole thing helps to obfuscate things beyond belief as opposed to having a simple yes/no vote on maintaining or scrapping a bill.
mobilefriendly 8y ago
Correct, this was a HUGE fight at the time, House Majority Leader Dick Armey fought his own party to include the expiring provision, and if memory serves some parts of the Patriot Act were not renewed.

toast0 8y ago

> An easier and more robust solution is to have expiring laws. Laws require a 'refresh' 2, 4 and then each 8 years after they're passed. If at any point they do not receive the a majority vote, they're scrapped. I guess the question this proposal raises is if congress would actually review the laws, or just blanket renew everything, except when they're exceptionally dysfunctional. If the renewal comes late, does it still count as a renewal or is a new law, starting at 2 years?