De-legislative House of Congress

Subject: De-legislative House of Congress Wed Mar 07, 2012 11:33 am

Heinlein suggested a Tri-carmel Congress in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. This third house would be simply a body that would uncreate laws. Basically a deregulation body.

I suggest it work this way

1 representative from each state appointed by the Governor

a simple majority can override any law

The deregulators can not deregulate the constitution

NO LOBBYING any outside money or politics is banned.

Laws must be at least 4 years old to be decommissioned.

Posts : 14 Join date : 2012-03-07

I've thought for some years that Congress should pass a moratorium on new legislation and spend 10 years trying to repeal all the bad laws they've passed in the last couple of centuries. So, I guess I agree with Heinlein on that.

Posts : 3 Join date : 2012-03-18

Sam Cree wrote:: I've thought for some years that Congress should pass a moratorium on new legislation and spend 10 years trying to repeal all the bad laws they've passed in the last couple of centuries. So, I guess I agree with Heinlein on that.

Here's my idea:

First, every law passed by the federal government must have a sunset on it (and the length of the sunset is not optional; at least, there's an upper limit, say no longer than ten years). If it's actually a good law, there'll be no problem with future congresses re-authorizing it. Plus, with future congresses having all these sunsetting laws to worry about, they won't have to pass new laws to try to justify their phony-baloney jobs.

Secondly, until such time as all federal laws have a sunset, any new law passed shall require the repealing of two such existing no-sunset laws.

Posts : 13 Join date : 2012-03-19

SeanF wrote:

Sam Cree wrote:: I've thought for some years that Congress should pass a moratorium on new legislation and spend 10 years trying to repeal all the bad laws they've passed in the last couple of centuries. So, I guess I agree with Heinlein on that.

Here's my idea:

First, every law passed by the federal government must have a sunset on it (and the length of the sunset is not optional; at least, there's an upper limit, say no longer than ten years). If it's actually a good law, there'll be no problem with future congresses re-authorizing it. Plus, with future congresses having all these sunsetting laws to worry about, they won't have to pass new laws to try to justify their phony-baloney jobs.

Secondly, until such time as all federal laws have a sunset, any new law passed shall require the repealing of two such existing no-sunset laws.

I like the sunset provision.

I would also suggest an Intent of Law section for each bill, written in simple English, provided as a guide to any judge who can't seem to find his ass with both hands about what the law actually means.

Posts : 7 Join date : 2012-03-19

balrog666 wrote:: I would also suggest an Intent of Law section for each bill, written in simple English, provided as a guide to any judge who can't seem to find his ass with both hands about what the law actually means.

I guarantee that any attempt to do this would be opposed to the death by The Usual Suspects.

Subject: Re: De-legislative House of Congress Tue Mar 27, 2012 12:37 am

Somewhere there should be a reference back to the Constitutional authority for the law.

Posts : 17 Join date : 2012-03-26

NicknamedBob wrote:: Somewhere there should be a reference back to the Constitutional authority for the law.

Agreed. I was in personnel when in the Navy. Every change I made to a service record, every order I typed up, everything had to be noted as in accordance with the relevant Military Personnel Manual article. We had to identify the DOD authority which allowed us to do what we did. It would be a good idea to require that of laws, IMO.

Subject: Re: De-legislative House of Congress Tue Mar 27, 2012 4:17 pm

El Goodo wrote:

NicknamedBob wrote:: Somewhere there should be a reference back to the Constitutional authority for the law.

Agreed. I was in personnel when in the Navy. Every change I made to a service record, every order I typed up, everything had to be noted as in accordance with the relevant Military Personnel Manual article. We had to identify the DOD authority which allowed us to do what we did. It would be a good idea to require that of laws, IMO.

This would be war. It would gut Congressional power more than anything else we have suggested here.

Posts : 17 Join date : 2012-03-26

Gideon wrote:

El Goodo wrote:

NicknamedBob wrote:: Somewhere there should be a reference back to the Constitutional authority for the law.

Agreed. I was in personnel when in the Navy. Every change I made to a service record, every order I typed up, everything had to be noted as in accordance with the relevant Military Personnel Manual article. We had to identify the DOD authority which allowed us to do what we did. It would be a good idea to require that of laws, IMO.

This would be war. It would gut Congressional power more than anything else we have suggested here.

So be it.

Seriously, though, not doing something to reign in federal power will likely lead to some kind of war as well. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Subject: Re: De-legislative House of Congress Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:01 pm

Gideon wrote:

El Goodo wrote:

NicknamedBob wrote:: Somewhere there should be a reference back to the Constitutional authority for the law.

Agreed. I was in personnel when in the Navy. Every change I made to a service record, every order I typed up, everything had to be noted as in accordance with the relevant Military Personnel Manual article. We had to identify the DOD authority which allowed us to do what we did. It would be a good idea to require that of laws, IMO.

This would be war. It would gut Congressional power more than anything else we have suggested here.

Nah. They'd just lump everything under the commerce clause, as they are currently trying to do in arguments before the Supreme Court.

If growing wheat on your own land for your own use falls under the commerce clause, and it does, and;

If growing marijuana in your own home, for your own use, falls under the commerce clause, and it does, then logically;

Nothing you can do or choose not to do will allow your activities to be private, to be untaxed and unregulated, and;

your ass is grass, and the commerce clause is the law'n'more.

Subject: Re: De-legislative House of Congress Tue Mar 27, 2012 7:07 pm

It is at the point that you can't move without breaking a law so why follow any law other than what you yourself deem right and decent.

Posts : 27 Join date : 2012-03-19

Quote :: Even the majority does not argue that respondents’ conduct is itself “Commerce among the several States.” Art. I, §8, cl. 3. Ante, at 19. Monson and Raich neither buy nor sell the marijuana that they consume. They cultivate their cannabis entirely in the State of California–it never crosses state lines, much less as part of a commercial transaction. Certainly no evidence from the founding suggests that “commerce” included the mere possession of a good or some purely personal activity that did not involve trade or exchange for value. In the early days of the Republic, it would have been unthinkable that Congress could prohibit the local cultivation, possession, and consumption of marijuana.

Justice Thomas, Gonzales v. Raich, dissenting

Posts : 17 Join date : 2012-03-26

Gideon wrote:: It is at the point that you can't move without breaking a law so why follow any law other than what you yourself deem right and decent.

And that is the "nation of lawbreakers". I suspect most people do these days, to varying degrees.