6 ms·

Rule of law is important. And if you want to get rid of old laws, you should just get rid of them by vote. If the vast majority of old laws are functioning well

Rule of law is important. And if you want to get rid of old laws, you should just get rid of them by vote. If the vast majority of old laws are functioning well, then you can keep them functioning, if there are a few ridiculous ones then you can go through normal channels of government. England had a case in the 1800s where everyone forgot that trial by battle still existed from the middle ages. Someone invoked it and it was upheld, but parliament quickly found it within them to repeal the law after that case. See, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashford_v_Thornton

salawat 7y ago
The problem with that is that that basically ensures most blue laws stay on the books by way of legislative DoS. As every repeal bill takes up the same legislative slot as adding a new law. An approach with sunset dates ensure the most important laws are at the forefront of national discourse, and ensures that lawmaking doesn't degenerate to "keep trying til you pass it, then smooth sailing because no one ever actively looks at these things anyway." Legislated law is not something to be treated lightly; especially at the Federal level in the United States, where the protection of liberty is a first class objective of the government's existence in the first place. Vote to uphold, I assert, is a clearer demonstrator of the Will of the People rather than vote to repeal. Vote to Repeal allows refuge in obscurity for keeping laws in force that most would not even wish to have in effect just by virtue of the majority of people being ignorant of them. Also, it cuts down on the tendency of law scholasticism to create a privileged class through the exploitation of loopholes, and archaic blue laws. If a law is truly worth having, let it be tested in the fires of reaffirmation. That which is without question, should pass with minimal controversy. That which is in woeful need of update or reformulation, will be brought to the forefront of the national consciousness and reshaped to better serve the interests of the Public. That which is no longer the Will of the People may be safely set aside to fade into the gentle repose of history, and the Public shall enjoy a restored liberty for it's having done so. My two cents.
- saalweachter 7y ago
  Which do you think is most likely. Each aspect of the law is carefully considered and debated every N years before being reaffirmed or rejected? Or, Every N years the legislature passes a pro-forma "the laws are still the laws" bill, which no one bothers to read or debate or modify in more than a cursory sense?
  - verelo 7y ago
    Yeah, it sounds like a hell of a lot of work to re-evaluate every law every X number of years. Probably not the best use of time...
    - salawat 7y ago
      Sounds like a hell of a lot of work for the judiciary to sort through the morass created by never acknowledging or dealing with increasing anachronistic cruft created by "pass it once" legislation. To the point a citizen sans law degree (or to a point with one) doesn't necessarily know where they stand. Laws are, and should be treated as maintenance items. If you can't be bothered to have a token yes vote, it doesn't belong on the books. If nothing else, it also keeps the culture intact, and gives a more realistic rendering of your long term representatives voting proclivities and priorities. It forces politicians to take a position, and live up to it instead of taking refuge in building their career around niche special interests. I acknowledge there are good points being made, and that yes, there has to be a willingness to change the way we approach the legislative process. I still believe it would not be as problematic as people think. There's second and third order incentives created to have better discipline with regards to the structuring of legislation in order to facilitate easy processing by those bound by it, and those charged with reaffirming. This manifests as a disincentive to create rider networks on unrelated bills, the ability to structure congressional committees around bundles of related subject matter (a procedure that currently works), and it allows the new voter to at least have their voice heard, and vote counted in regards to fundamental issues of the laws they are bound by. This takes it from something other people forced on you, to something you voted for. This would greatly increase the closeness of the voter to their government. Should dramatic upset happen, it represents a signal that a cultural consensus needs to be arrived at. I doubt that the vast majority of people are so deluded to not be able to agree on the basics on a regular basis. I do, however, think that there may be a preference for less mainstream political movement in the absence of a requirement to agree on the fundamentals with regularity. Polarization becomes much more difficult when we're forced to come to a compromise to preserve what is truly important. And what is truly important is that which can be passed no questions asked. Deadlock is the gift of the Founders, but getting something done, even if it was a foregone conclusion, goes a long way to maintaining faith in the system. And guess what? In X so many years, if the legislative process doesn't pan out...just let it drop, and go back to what worked. Nothing even structurally changes. It's just default bill behavior that does.

salawat 7y ago

The problem with that is that that basically ensures most blue laws stay on the books by way of legislative DoS. As every repeal bill takes up the same legislative slot as adding a new law. An approach with sunset dates ensure the most important laws are at the forefront of national discourse, and ensures that lawmaking doesn't degenerate to "keep trying til you pass it, then smooth sailing because no one ever actively looks at these things anyway." Legislated law is not something to be treated lightly; especially at the Federal level in the United States, where the protection of liberty is a first class objective of the government's existence in the first place. Vote to uphold, I assert, is a clearer demonstrator of the Will of the People rather than vote to repeal. Vote to Repeal allows refuge in obscurity for keeping laws in force that most would not even wish to have in effect just by virtue of the majority of people being ignorant of them. Also, it cuts down on the tendency of law scholasticism to create a privileged class through the exploitation of loopholes, and archaic blue laws. If a law is truly worth having, let it be tested in the fires of reaffirmation. That which is without question, should pass with minimal controversy. That which is in woeful need of update or reformulation, will be brought to the forefront of the national consciousness and reshaped to better serve the interests of the Public. That which is no longer the Will of the People may be safely set aside to fade into the gentle repose of history, and the Public shall enjoy a restored liberty for it's having done so. My two cents.

saalweachter 7y ago
Which do you think is most likely. Each aspect of the law is carefully considered and debated every N years before being reaffirmed or rejected? Or, Every N years the legislature passes a pro-forma "the laws are still the laws" bill, which no one bothers to read or debate or modify in more than a cursory sense?
- verelo 7y ago
  Yeah, it sounds like a hell of a lot of work to re-evaluate every law every X number of years. Probably not the best use of time...
  - salawat 7y ago
    Sounds like a hell of a lot of work for the judiciary to sort through the morass created by never acknowledging or dealing with increasing anachronistic cruft created by "pass it once" legislation. To the point a citizen sans law degree (or to a point with one) doesn't necessarily know where they stand. Laws are, and should be treated as maintenance items. If you can't be bothered to have a token yes vote, it doesn't belong on the books. If nothing else, it also keeps the culture intact, and gives a more realistic rendering of your long term representatives voting proclivities and priorities. It forces politicians to take a position, and live up to it instead of taking refuge in building their career around niche special interests. I acknowledge there are good points being made, and that yes, there has to be a willingness to change the way we approach the legislative process. I still believe it would not be as problematic as people think. There's second and third order incentives created to have better discipline with regards to the structuring of legislation in order to facilitate easy processing by those bound by it, and those charged with reaffirming. This manifests as a disincentive to create rider networks on unrelated bills, the ability to structure congressional committees around bundles of related subject matter (a procedure that currently works), and it allows the new voter to at least have their voice heard, and vote counted in regards to fundamental issues of the laws they are bound by. This takes it from something other people forced on you, to something you voted for. This would greatly increase the closeness of the voter to their government. Should dramatic upset happen, it represents a signal that a cultural consensus needs to be arrived at. I doubt that the vast majority of people are so deluded to not be able to agree on the basics on a regular basis. I do, however, think that there may be a preference for less mainstream political movement in the absence of a requirement to agree on the fundamentals with regularity. Polarization becomes much more difficult when we're forced to come to a compromise to preserve what is truly important. And what is truly important is that which can be passed no questions asked. Deadlock is the gift of the Founders, but getting something done, even if it was a foregone conclusion, goes a long way to maintaining faith in the system. And guess what? In X so many years, if the legislative process doesn't pan out...just let it drop, and go back to what worked. Nothing even structurally changes. It's just default bill behavior that does.