5 ms·
If we didn't have a two-party nightmare willing to filibuster perfectly good policies as a tool to ramrod in alternative agendas, I think it'd work well to have
by hansvm 2y ago
If we didn't have a two-party nightmare willing to filibuster perfectly good policies as a tool to ramrod in alternative agendas, I think it'd work well to have laws with expiration dates. You'd have a natural forcing function by which language would be refined over time, laws would stay relevant, and the total body of legislation would stay at a manageable size.
As something of a litmus test, if a crime is so minor that the police wouldn't do anything if you brought them multiple eyewitnesses, video evidence, and an address to knock on, then having that law on the books probably does more harm than good (many petty crimes like mild speeding would fit those criteria).
- thfuran 2y agoI don't think (all) laws should expire. It'd mean that any delay in the legislature could potentially cause a real mess. But I do think a well-functioning legislature should spend a fair amount of time reviewing and perhaps revising the existing body of law.
- bobthepanda 2y agoThe budgeting process already works like this and is a hot mess. And so do other things like the PATRIOT Act, the authorization of various agencies like FAA, etc.
- int_19h 2y agoWith e.g. the PATRIOT Act, the "hot mess" is that they just keep reauthorizing the provisions that require it. But I fail to see how it would be any better if they didn't even have to do that. At least the way things are, every time it comes up for re-auth, it also has to be renegotiated in the court of public opinion.
- lupire 2y agoYes, laws would be very easy to write if we had consensus. Unfortunately, laws are useful primarily when we don't have consensus.