Repeal

[Perd Hapley]

The last time I can recall being proud to be a Republican was in those heady days when they called us "the party of 'No.'" Don't you wish we really had a party like that? But of course, it's not quite enough to reject new programs and new laws. What we don't hear about often enough is repeal. I don't know how to popularize this idea, but if I could, the following would be my attempt at it.

I call it, at least provisionally, the Repeal Platform.

The Repeal Platform:

To be adopted by the states and by the federal government.

No new laws may go into effect until three existing laws are repealed.

No new government departments or positions may be created unless two existing departments or positions are eliminated. No funds may be allocated for new departments or positions until the two departments or positions selected for elimination have been abolished and de-funded.

Obviously, it's just a sketch. I'm not sure how this could be implemented; whether or not it would require constitutional amendment. I also like the idea of adding something similar with regards to spending, but I suppose that would be the same as the balanced-budget sort of measures that have been around for some time.

Your thoughts?

[Ben]

No new government departments or positions may be created unless two existing departments or positions are eliminated. No funds may be allocated for new departments or positions until the two departments or positions selected for elimination have been abolished and de-funded.

Your thoughts?

I do like your premise and have always been a fan of eliminating laws before new laws are passed. I also think any new laws should only be laws that return, preserve, or create freedoms. No new laws with restrictions (I know, pipe dream).

Regarding your quote above, fed.gov did something like that under Clinton (basically reducing and/or leaving FTEs vacant), however the tricksky hobbitses hired tons of contractors under a different pot of money, so it looked like there was this big manpower savings, when in reality, once you worked in contractor overhead, the taxpayers were paying more per position than if the position was a fed employee.

[roo_ster]

Make the House and Senate have to read out and vote on every last bit of administrative law--individually--& reg before it can be implemented.  Starting from the beginning of the federal register.

[Ben]

Make the House and Senate have to read out and vote on every last bit of administrative law--individually--& reg before it can be implemented.  Starting from the beginning of the federal register.

I'd be happy if they just friggin fully read bills before they voted on them.

[MillCreek]

^^^And require all laws and regulations to be written at a ninth-grade reading level.

[RevDisk]

Make the House and Senate have to read out and vote on every last bit of administrative law--individually--& reg before it can be implemented.  Starting from the beginning of the federal register.

*nearly starts crying*

That'd be the most beautiful thing in existence... 

[JN01]

^^^And require all laws and regulations to be written at a ninth-grade reading level.

So all new legislation would have references to Dick, Jane, and Spot?

[Perd Hapley]

I guess this law will need some kind of self-limiting clause, so that we don't get to the point of needing to eliminate the office of Postmaster General, in order to create a Teleportation Tsar.

Or will it?


Also, I'd like to include language in the Repeal Law that changes the Dept. of Defense back to the Dept. of War.

[brimic]

So all new legislation would have references to Dick, Jane, and Spot?

I see what you did there. 

[charby]

Get on the local central committee of republican party where you live, pay your dues with volunteer labor for a few years, then you can start to push for planks in the local/state party platform. If these deem worthy then the national party may adopt them.

[Scout26]

I've always advocated the Seven Year Re-newal Amendment.  Any law automatically expires 7 years after it was signed.   If it's still such a great idea, it needs to passed all over again.  From Scratch.  No Crominbus bills.  Each one, individually with hearings and the lot. 

And once passed they have to do the read the entire Federal Register from page one.  Hopefully it will take at least 8 years to get that done !!!!

[charby]

I've always advocated the Seven Year Re-newal Amendment.  Any law automatically expires 7 years after it was signed.   If it's still such a great idea, it needs to passed all over again.  From Scratch.  No Crominbus bills.  Each one, individually with hearings and the lot. 

And once passed they have to do the read the entire Federal Register from page one.  Hopefully it will take at least 8 years to get that done !!!!

And has to be 100% in attendance for the reading or the session doesn't count. A vote can not be issued/taken.

All subject matter in a bills has to be germane to the title/abstract of the bill, if not bill is considered void and no vote may be issued/taken.

Bills can not be more than 4 pages long, double spaced, 12 pt font, single sided, less than 1500 words.

[HankB]

No new laws may go into effect until three existing laws are repealed, and no provisions of said repealed laws may be incorporated in any new laws.

Otherwise they'll just repeal three laws and incorporate them into ONE new law . . . a very long law.

[Firethorn]

No new laws may go into effect until three existing laws are repealed.

Given that most laws passed are 'omnibus' I don't see how this is practical.  They could repeal them then immediately repass them.

No, my proposals:
1.  Reducing federal spending only takes 40% of the vote.  Increasing spending requires a supermajority.
2.  Any new law that imposes a burden on the public automatically expires every 10 years.
3.  The budget is to be balanced over any given 10 year period
4.  A continuing fund is to be established, 1% of federal revenue shall be deposited into it.  The returns shall be used to displace taxes.

[brimic]

I like Heinlein's idea of 'house of repeals'- a 3rd house/senate branch that has only the purpose of repealing laws, a simple majority vote repeals any law. 

[Perd Hapley]

...and no provisions of said repealed laws may be incorporated in any new laws.

Thanks. I knew it needed something like that. You've supplied an important missing piece. Thanks.

[Scout26]

Given that most laws passed are 'omnibus' I don't see how this is practical.  They could repeal them then immediately repass them.

No, my proposals:
1.  Reducing federal spending only takes 40% of the vote.  Increasing spending requires a supermajority.
2.  Any new law that imposes a burden on the public automatically expires every 10 years.
3.  The budget is to be balanced over any given 10 year period
4.  A continuing fund is to be established, 1% of federal revenue shall be deposited into it.  The returns shall be used to displace taxes.

1.  Increasing spending require 80%.
2.  And must remain expire for at least 3 years before being able to be reconsidered for passage.
3.  Budget must be balanced every year, unless an Act of War is declared.  (See #1)
4.  I'm good with that.

The problem your #3 is they would do one year of total suckage every 20.  100% taxation and 0 spending.

[230RN]

"No new laws may go into effect until three existing laws are repealed."

I've been saying that for years, as well as suggesting a limitation of three days on any legislative sessions, including State and local... among other similar things.

Like mandatory 1-year terms of office.

Like making legislators pay for the privilege of law-making, instead of giving them salaries and pensions.

Like making them meet in hot uncomfortable small spaces.

Like making them personally liable financially and punishable  by imprisonment in perpetuity for any laws or parts thereof which are later declared unconstitutional.

Stuff like that there, expressed many times on many boards in the past.

And my tongue was only partially in my cheek.

Terry

[Hawkmoon]

Sunset requirements are an excellent idea. So is a law that requires the repeal of one (or two, or three) existing laws before any new laws can be enacted.

The one I would like to see (aside from term limits for the Congress) is a law that prohibits any amendments to proposed bills unless (a) the proposed amendment relates directly to the subject of the bill, and (b) the original author/sponsor of the bill accepts the proposed amendment. The concept of "poison pill" amendments is anathema to honest government. Nothing should ever be allowed to become law unless it is fully discussed on its own merits and voted on for its own merits rather than as a trade-off for something else.

[Firethorn]

2.  And must remain expire for at least 3 years before being able to be reconsidered for passage.

I actually wasn't thinking right when I wrote my expiration - it should have been ALL laws that place a burden on the public(IE isn't internal in nature, like FOIA, military affairs, etc...)

Still, requiring it to remain expired for 3 years before repassage is, I think, taking it a step too far - because criminal law would be considered a burden, and we do need some new ones, carefully written, to deal with new things like cyber-crime.

[birdman]

Bills can not be more than 4 pages long, double spaced, 12 pt font, single sided, less than 1500 words.

The problem with this is it instantly leads to congress handing off powers to beauracratic agencies...since we -know- they can't resist touching everything with law, and there are a finite number of minutes/votes, you would see a lot more "the secretary shall"

[brimic]

The problem with this is it instantly leads to congress handing off powers to beauracratic agencies...since we -know- they can't resist touching everything with law, and there are a finite number of minutes/votes, you would see a lot more "the secretary shall"

I believe that if congress doesn't have time to pass it, it is not important enough to be law.

[Mannlicher]

I am so disgusted with the Republican Party here in Florida, and at the National level, that last year, I went down to the Court House, and registered as an Independent.
Tried to discuss this before I did it with the Republican National Committee, and the State people, but no one would answer a letter, phone call or email.  Screw 'em.
I have been a registered Republican since 1964, but the party has left me, and gone down the road to political  perdition.