4 ms·

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.
  • verelo 7y ago
    I’m all for the experiment, something tells me the expiration of something important will pass (maybe an important civil liberty?) and we might realize law makers intentionally delayed and let it lapse? I just think it comes with some side effects that could look innocent but depending who wants what to happen could be used to let things go away silently. Ie environmental laws when the government wants to allow mineral extraction but public sentiment would never allow it. I’d love to type more but I’m on my phone and down to one thumb due to an injury. Sorry for not engaging more on this!