Yes, one of the laws that definitely needs to be replaced is the gun law
There ya go. There's the workaround. Nobody (in this thread) said they had to be renewed one-by-one.I have to admit, it's an interesting idea. But I think it may very well be that congress critters'll figure a way around it.
Now we have huge omnibus budget / spending bills that have every manner of tacked on crap, as is usual when designed by committee.
A package of laws comes up for review / renewal, and wouldn't it be likely that the same approach would be applied? Just a big package of laws all renewed by default. But a check mark in that box and move on?
On the other hand, it opens the door for ever more tweaking of existing laws. Can you imagine the nation constantly running after all the changes to the laws?
I guess it really depends on what level of 'review' the laws get. The best possible review would be a full cost / benefit analysis, as well as an impact analysis, i.e. is the law doing what it was supposed to do?
But something tells me that if a law is really damaging someone, or something, or had some really unforeseen negative effects, that it'd be tweaked (band aided) way before 10 years past.
There ya go. There's the workaround. Nobody (in this thread) said they had to be renewed one-by-one.
Perhaps they did not see it as you do?
Yes, one of the laws that definitely needs to be replaced is the gun law
Yep. This also touches on vaguely written laws and how they come back to bite us. A law can be written as, "All laws must sunset after 10 years, and must be renewed to continue." No mention of *how*, and as you say, they could all be renewed with one fell swoop.If the individual laws are being reviewed for their efficacy, then really, what's the point?
I don't believe he was outright violating the Constitution... if only because he knew he'd never get away with it... but he was clearly trying to do an end run, while staying juuuuuuust inside the boundaries, and having the same end result as violating the Constitution.I don't think anyone can argue that FDR was trying to follow the constitution. He wanted to use the crisis of the Depression to grab all sorts of powers for the federal government that cannot be found by even the most expansive honest interpretation of the commerce clause etc