Constitutional amendment idea

[drewtam]

Some newspapers and important political bloggers have been talking about a Constitutional amendment. The jist of the one being discussed is an amendment which would allow a majority of states to band together to repeal some of Federal toilet paper that gets passed.

This has sparked a different amendment idea in my mind...

What if we a had an amendment that made all laws (not amendments) be required to have a 10year/20year sunset provision.
Any and all laws are required to have 10year or a 20year sunset.

If the law only passes with a simple majority (51% to 65%) (and is signed by el presidente) then it has a mandatory 10year sunset provision.

If a law passes Congress with a super majority and is signed by the president, then it has a mandatory 20year sunset provision.

This amendment should be retroactive to everything on the books.

Benefits:

With a 10year sunset, no 2 term president would have to fight the same political battle twice.

Uncontroversial law does not have to waste everyone's time every 10 years.

The sunset is still short enough to provide people a chance to review the cost/benefit. Highly controversial legislation can be reviewed after reasonable amount of time; the desires of the people will be directly felt.

Political fads and ideas come and go; this amendment would help the country clear out old ideas and failed experiments.

Old laws that are sometimes forgotten, these also get slowly cleared out.

Old gov't programs can be eventually killed this way.

The more laws Congress passes, the more time they have to spend re-approving old laws. Which slows down the rate they can make new laws. This should help slow the growth of government.

As time changes, legislature which was good before; might be discovered to have significant loopholes or grey areas. This amendment would help drive resolution to those issues.

This would drive congresspeople to give recorded up/down votes on important topics. This should help drive accountability.

Gives Congress something to do, lets them 'build their resume' without actually burdening the country with more laws.

[Boomhauer]

"Mandatory sunset" is an idea I'm hearing more and more about lately.

[grampster]

I've preached that gospel for years.  I've shared that notion with some political folks I know and they are horrified by the notion.  I think that's why I know it's a good idea.

[zahc]

I thought of that a long time ago. There is no law that wouldn't benefit from being revisited every 20 years, if only due to technological advancement. It would give politicians something to do and all the debates would be about which of the dozens/hundreds of sunsetting laws to re-enact, rather than which new laws we are going to get. We all know that repealing laws is politically impossible; a mandatory sunset seems like a strong way to prevent government bloat.

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Every 5 years. No longer. And only if you couple it with reducing the time congress is in session to like 6 months (or follow how the legislature in Texas runs), reduce the salaries of congress critters to what an E-6 makes and set firm term limits. And I mean firm. Once you serve and your time is up, no more. No leaving the House and running for Senate. I hate career politicians. That's part of our problem. We have an Aristocracy in this country, it's the political class.

[Northwoods]

You've been reading some of my posts on here, haven't you?

[De Selby]

Awesome, so laws that otherwise wouldn't garner enough attention for a debate give the special interest groups a guaranteed opportunity to monkey with the system every 10 to 20 years.

This is a recipe for making the entire statute book read like the tax code - full of crap that gets added on every so many years while this issue or that issue has some money behind it.

Imagine where we'd be if the Constitution had a 20 year sunset, and you had the last few sessions of Congress tasked to rewrite it.  If you wouldn't support that, why would you support having them do the same to every other law?

[MicroBalrog]

We're not going to solve our problems by adjusting the rules.

[kgbsquirrel]

If you wouldn't support that, why would you support having them do the same to every other law?

Well lets look at the two possibilities here....

Option 1: Obligatory sunset amendment.
Congress has no restrictions on making bad law, but the bad laws expire and hopefully a new congress has been elected in the aftermath and wont make the same bad laws.

Option 2: No obligatory sunset amendment.
Congress still has no restrictions on making bad law, and it is more or less permanent.

As it sits, option 2 is the current status quo. You've argued, De Selby, that an obligatory sunset would give Congress free reign to start passing stupid legislation, but that is a flawed argument. Congress doesn't need this potential amendment to implement bad law because they are doing so already with out it, not to mention whether law is considered good or bad is a personal judgment issue that is not touched by the presence or absence of obligatory sunset amendment. The only major difference would be that with such a clause certain bad law as (and yes I'm going to use one of my pet issues as an example) the Hughes Amendment, '68 GCA and '34 NFA would actually have a chance at being removed instead of remaining in place as a matter of political self-preservation due to career politicians not wishing to compromise their positions of power.

If a particular law is considered important enough that it needs to be a permanent facet of our country there is a provision for that located in Article V of the Constitution. And I thank God it is far more stringent a process than our current legislative process that allows law to be made with, at times, a minimal involvement of only five people out of a nation of three hundred ten million.

[Northwoods]

This is a recipe for making the entire statute book read like the tax code - full of crap that gets added on every so many years while this issue or that issue has some money behind it.

You're assuming that isn't already the case, even without the sunset clause ammendment.  And you would be wrong.

Imagine where we'd be if the Constitution had a 20 year sunset, and you had the last few sessions of Congress tasked to rewrite it.  If you wouldn't support that, why would you support having them do the same to every other law?

You, sir, are an idiot.  That or illiterate.  Every single time has been brought up (by me, or the OP, or anyone else - but you) it is explicitly stated that the COTUS itself would not be subject to such a sunset provision.  Doing so would be assinine.  That you'd even ask why I'd support sunsets on the regular laws, but not COTUS just demonstrates how pusil minded you are.

[MicroBalrog]

This is the Armed Polite Society.

I'd also like to point out that De Selby clearly suggested this as an analogy, not to state that this was where the advocates of an amendment were proposing.

[Chuck Dye]

In my circle of friends the stock answer to such proposals is "Too simple."  Either the solution itself is too simple or the people asked to provide it are too simple.

You, sir, are an idiot.  ...just demonstrates how pusil minded you are.

Well so much for the Polite in Armed Polite Society!

[Battle Monkey of Zardoz]

Strictly following the Constitution would solve most of the problems (hey, I can dream).  Going back and getting rid of the direct election of senators and let the Governors of said state appoint its Senators would be another step in the right direction.  Getting rid of the IRS/Income tax, replace it with something that is fair, and something that EVERYONE pays (no teat suckers that never pay into the kitty, but reap the subsidized benefits).  AND TERM LIMITS, like I said earlier.  If you serve you limit as a Senator, you cannot run for any other elected office, ever.  Read the Federalist.  There was a very explicit warning against what the founders called "An Elected Despotism".  We have that now.  Royals, in the form of people who get elected and never leave.  Rangel, Pelosi, McCain, Schumer.  They homestead, and idiots vote for them, not because they are the best to represent, but because the idiots get payment (entitlements).  The welfare state is one huge voting block, dont you think for a minute it isnt.  

One other thing.  Elections.  Make is easier for anyone to run.  Strict laws on campaign finances.  Make it so someone that is not well off can run.  Hell, Id support a law that, if one met the qualifications of office, for the Govt to finance their campaign, set a Dollar amount and thats it.  No private donations, no raising a ton of money, each candidate has the same $$.  And make it a law that you have 6 months to campaign for said office, not like we are about to see Obama and his challengers start the 2012 Presidential race this year.  

Next idea, and a few of my liberal friends really hate this one, is to have a State Electoral College.  I firmly believe if States counted the votes by Electoral College, you would see states like California become Republican held.  

One idea that I have not decided on personally, is the idea that if you do not pay in any federal taxes, you dont get a vote in federal elections.  I like it because if one does not pay federal taxes, one should not get a say in how those taxes are spent (akin to voting yourself a raise in entitlements).  Yet I believe that voting is a right, and a heavy responsibility.  Most people today, IMO, vote with an attitude of "whats in it for me" instead of whats best for the country or voting for what they believe in (sure some believe entitlements are a right, they are idiots who havent read the Constitution, but they believe it).

[De Selby]

You're assuming that isn't already the case, even without the sunset clause ammendment.  And you would be wrong.

You, sir, are an idiot.  That or illiterate.  Every single time has been brought up (by me, or the OP, or anyone else - but you) it is explicitly stated that the COTUS itself would not be subject to such a sunset provision.  Doing so would be assinine.  That you'd even ask why I'd support sunsets on the regular laws, but not COTUS just demonstrates how pusil minded you are.

Wow - before you haul off, you really should consider the text more carefully.

The point about the tax code was precisely that it gets debated and amended constantly - and that, my friend, is what will happen if you introduce mandatory sunset clauses.  Then every piece of legislation will face the knife as often as the tax code, and look how well that turned out for the tax code.  To connect the dots there, it's not like Congress will just start over every time.  What they'll do is take what's expiring, and use that as a baseline with interest groups' views included on each review.  That's a recipe for disastrously complicated, tough to read, and willy nilly legislation.

The point about the COTUS, if you'll read again, was that it would without a doubt be shredded into something Orwellian if we'd required Congress to rewrite it.  So why on earth do you think they'd do a better job with run of the mill statutes, some of which may have worked just fine for the past 100 years?

That is an example for you to consider, not a suggestion that you wanted to change the Constitution.  And I'm certainly not sure how that got to all the name calling.

[De Selby]

The only major difference would be that with such a clause certain bad law as (and yes I'm going to use one of my pet issues as an example) the Hughes Amendment, '68 GCA and '34 NFA would actually have a chance at being removed instead of remaining in place as a matter of political self-preservation due to career politicians not wishing to compromise their positions of power.

If a particular law is considered important enough that it needs to be a permanent facet of our country there is a provision for that located in Article V of the Constitution. And I thank God it is far more stringent a process than our current legislative process that allows law to be made with, at times, a minimal involvement of only five people out of a nation of three hundred ten million.

Your examples only work if you consider the currently favourable gun rights climate; imagine if Congress had been required by law to rewrite the GCA and NFA under Clinton's watch, prior to '94.  You could have ended up with such a large disarming of the population that by the time the 10 year sunset hit, there would've been no gun owners left to agitate a pro-rights point of view.  

It is much, much safer to rely on advocacy to bring items before Congress when it's right to do so, rather than leaving your freedoms to the chance that Congress might be favourable when they come up for review in 10 or 20 years.

Encouraging review of a law you want today by a Congress you cannot foresee is gambling. So is betting that laws you don't like today will be improved by that same unforeseeable Congress.  If you can't get the changes you want from the current Congress, spend your efforts arguing the case and building popular support.  Automatic review will not accomplish political consensus on freedoms, which is actually what we're after.

[kgbsquirrel]

Your examples only work if you consider the currently favourable gun rights climate; imagine if Congress had been required by law to rewrite the GCA and NFA under Clinton's watch, prior to '94.  You could have ended up with such a large disarming of the population that by the time the 10 year sunset hit, there would've been no gun owners left to agitate a pro-rights point of view.  

It is much, much safer to rely on advocacy to bring items before Congress when it's right to do so, rather than leaving your freedoms to the chance that Congress might be favourable when they come up for review in 10 or 20 years.

Encouraging review of a law you want today by a Congress you cannot foresee is gambling. So is betting that laws you don't like today will be improved by that same unforeseeable Congress.  If you can't get the changes you want from the current Congress, spend your efforts arguing the case and building popular support.  Automatic review will not accomplish political consensus on freedoms, which is actually what we're after.

Once again your argument is based on the invalid presumption that the lack of a sunset amendment somehow precludes congress from visiting bad law upon this nation. The existence of the NFA and GCA prove that otherwise. Not to mention your assertion, that should such a constitutional amendment have been in place during the Clinton era it's existence would somehow have caused onerous restrictions to be laid upon us, is in itself completely blind to the fact that they did actually lay onerous restrictions upon us, it was called the assault weapons ban, and the only reason such an awful piece of tripe no longer carries the force of law is due to just such a sunset provision and not advocacy.

Further your other argument about freedoms are nothing more than obfuscatory obiter dictum. My freedoms are not up for negotiation, that is why they are specifically protected as part and parcel of the constitution and would be in no danger of a sunset amendment that would affect non-constitutional laws, a concept that several people here have repeatedly tried to explain to you.

[De Selby]

kgb, I think what you're not considering is the distinction between the political power to determine outcomes on existing debates, versus the political power to define what's up for debate.  The former can be achieved with a lot less than the latter; however, being able to put something up for debate doesn't mean you can determine the outcome.

The assault weapons ban put one narrow issue on the table, and the antis won.  They didn't have the clout to make it permanent, or to make it more expansive.  Now, if the GCA and the NFA had expired at that same time...gun sales were going to be regulated, somehow, at least.  There would have been a wide-open debate on how guns were to be regulated.  At that time, although weak, the Bradys ended up winning the assault weapons ban.  Now imagine if their ideas had won out in the race to introduce a comprehensive new piece of gun legislation, which the GCA and the NFA would've required. 

Bringing things up for debate is politically risky; it shouldn't be done without a good reason and without the organisation in place to achieve the desired outcome.  Otherwise, there's no way to predict what will happen.

You may believe your freedoms are not up for negotiation, but de facto, they are.  You listed one example on your own of where your constitutional freedoms were limited by statute.  Statutes have an enormous impact on your day-to-day life apart from the Constitution.  What I'm saying here is that the best approach is to work for what you want through consensus building and political organisation.  Sunset provisions make that tough to do, because they force you to define the next 10 or 20 years at random moments (ie, whenever the sunset happens), rather than at carefully chosen moments.

[MicroBalrog]

You are not going to fix the problem by adjusting the rules.

The problem of the welfare state isn't the product of faulty rules - as demonstrated by the fact that every Western country, no matter what its constitution is like, has acquired a welfare state of some description around the same time that the United States has. Firearms are a good example. England expanded its gun control laws into the system we have today in 1937 and 1968, Germany did it in 1938 and 1972, Canada introduced major gun laws in 1934 and 1968.

This seems to me to show that the problem is not the rules according to which we comport legislation, but the climate of ideas.

[Jamisjockey]

Laws aren't the real problem.  Whats not being addressed is how our government rules by regulation, through the insane number of Administrations and Departments.
I think that there should be a constiutional amendment that each individual Department and Administration budget should be individually addressed by congress.  No more omnibus spending bills.  Each department should also have to submit a constiutional authority statement with its budget, addressing where their constituional authority to operate comes from.

[Strings]

I hereby nominate Jamis for president in 2012...

[drewtam]

You are not going to fix the problem by adjusting the rules.

The problem of the welfare state isn't the product of faulty rules - as demonstrated by the fact that every Western country, no matter what its constitution is like, has acquired a welfare state of some description around the same time that the United States has. Firearms are a good example. England expanded its gun control laws into the system we have today in 1937 and 1968, Germany did it in 1938 and 1972, Canada introduced major gun laws in 1934 and 1968.

This seems to me to show that the problem is not the rules according to which we comport legislation, but the climate of ideas.

I thought it was a good point the first time you said it.... 

I would argue that the benefits I laid out and your point, are not mutually exclusive. I would go further and say they reinforce the other. Spirits of an age and generation come and go; yet here we sit with 1930's laws without the political will to even begin to address their fundamental issues. Mandatory sunsets help to make sure no political issue is ever off the table. That path leads to stagnation.

If conservative and libertarian viewpoints lose again on those issues, so be it. At least each generation will take a fresh look at it.

Laws aren't the real problem.  Whats not being addressed is how our government rules by regulation, through the insane number of Administrations and Departments.
I think that there should be a constiutional amendment that each individual Department and Administration budget should be individually addressed by congress.  No more omnibus spending bills.  Each department should also have to submit a constiutional authority statement with its budget, addressing where their constituional authority to operate comes from.

That is part of my vision for this amendment. Take for example the EPA... since the clean air act would be reviewed every 10 to 20years. Some of the gaps and mistakes in the law can be fixed; while hot issues like AGW can be addressed by Congress (and political debate) and not some bureaucrat. Or the FCC can be reviewed for Net Neutrality, TSA for molestation, etc.
This sunset would make the regulatory agencies much more beholden to Congress than Presidential agenda. (Which is also part of my vision, reducing presidential power.)

[Boomhauer]

I hereby nominate Jamis for president in 2012...

Jamis: I have a dream...a dream of topless bars on every corner. A dream of a massive national chain of liquor/gun/cigar stores. A dream of mandatory paid fishing days. A dream of a world where traditional role of a man is to stay home and the women go to work. An era that shall be called the Great American Age of Hedonism.

[Jamisjockey]

Jamis: I have a dream...a dream of topless bars on every corner. A dream of a massive national chain of liquor/gun/cigar stores. A dream of mandatory paid fishing days. A dream of a world where traditional role of a man is to stay home and the women go to work. An era that shall be called the Great American Age of Hedonism.

Strip clubs will be considered tax deductible, as you're contracting an employee for a service.   

[KD5NRH]

I hereby nominate Jamis for president in 2012...

I still want to be Secretary of the Interior.

[Northwoods]

I still want to be Secretary of the Interior.

I'd be cool with Director of the FAA.