3 ms·
I’ve been downvoted for making this comment before, but I really don’t care. Sure the details are fuzzy and I’m sure it has its problems, but here goes: legisla
by brodouevencode 5y ago
I’ve been downvoted for making this comment before, but I really don’t care. Sure the details are fuzzy and I’m sure it has its problems, but here goes: legislation outside that of basic human rights things (like murder, theft, rape, etc)
should have an expiration date. It would force legislators to revisit some of the more asinine laws that no longer have a place in society. Drug legalization comes to mind here. Maybe that’s a bit simplistic and I acknowledge that but there’s something in expiring unnecessary and unneeded legislation that’s so appealing.
- vimax 5y agoAnother idea I've heard is separate legislative bodies. One that can only add laws and one that removes laws.
- giantg2 5y agoI feel like that might end up with some circular fights. The judiciary is probably the closest thing to removing laws by invalidating ones that violate rights or other rules. Although it seems they are more inclined to legislate from the bench than actually uphold rule of law.
- giantg2 5y agoThey do this with some laws. For example, the 1994 assault weapon ban had a 10 year sunset provision.
- brodouevencode 5y agoBut that was written into the law as part of the law. What Im suggesting is a blanket provision.
- giantg2 5y agoI think that would add a huge amount of instability. Crafting legislation to work with the existing laws to account for n order impacts is already complicated. But under this blanket proposal you would have to understand the current state system plus all the iterations over its lifetime due to the existing laws phasing out and whether or not they will be extended, replaced, or expired. Not to mention, that would likely invalidate a lot of case law if not a straight extension.