• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

Should ALL laws sunset after 10 years?

  • yes, laws need to be constantly reviewed

    Votes: 14 43.8%
  • no, laws should be forever until replaced

    Votes: 9 28.1%
  • Other - explain in thread

    Votes: 8 25.0%
  • Welcome To Costco I Love You

    Votes: 1 3.1%

  • Total voters
    32
I spent 33 years teaching. I try to no longer post in education threads because I got sick and tired of being sick and tired trying to argue with people who had no idea what they were talking about as they did not have any real experience with that issue.

This reminds me of that.

So congressmen don't spend as much time worrying about re-election as they do actually doing their jobs? So laws passed don't ever have unintended consequences?
 
You apparently wasted your time then and continue to do so.

The only true waste of time is posting to people like you who have no idea what they are talking about when they take on a subject in which they have no one iota of practical or real experience.
 
So congressmen don't spend as much time worrying about re-election as they do actually doing their jobs? So laws passed don't ever have unintended consequences?

Re-electiopn is their top priority. Adding review of 10% of past laws every years DOES NOT AND WILL NOT CHANGE THAT REALITY.

Of course some laws have unintended consequences... and they can be negative ones to boot. And when that happens they can alter or repeal the law without any stupid "you gotta review every law every decade" nonsense.
 
I was looking at the astounding number of federal laws passed every single year, and it occurred to me: part of the problem is that elected officials feel the need to "do something". With millions of laws on the books, all they can do is make more and more laws, which further and further stifle us as a country.



I propose that all laws not specifically enumerated in The Constitution expire after 10 years.

This would give us

A) something for the politicians to "do" without thinking of new crap to tie us up with
B) it would mean "bad" law doesn't last for decades (NFA Act '37 for example)
C) It would mean law more closely matches the current political makeup. No ramming something through in the dead of the night which is still there years later, even though it was passed through deceit and legislative maneuvering ala ObamaCare, Social Security etc....

It should depend on the type of law. For example laws saying politicians can't take bribes should never expire while laws making certain substances illegal or certain treaties should probably be reviewed.
 
The only true waste of time is posting to people like you who have no idea what they are talking about when they take on a subject in which they have no one iota of practical or real experience.

So back to the topic... if politicians had a motivation and incentive to get rid of older laws which may or may not apply to life today, it would actually be doing more good than what they currently do, which is bicker and make nonsensical partisan vomit, like your post there. The question is, what would prompt politicians to actually do that and what projected good or harm would it provide in the present and future? Since such a discussion and hypothesis is far above your pay grade I'll look for others to join in for constructive comments.
 
So back to the topic... if politicians had a motivation and incentive to get rid of older laws which may or may not apply to life today, it would actually be doing more good than what they currently do, which is bicker and make nonsensical partisan vomit, like your post there.

This is just your typical cheap personal attack clothed in vitriol and bitterness disguised as pretending to get "back to the topic".

Listening to you pretend that you can rearrange the work schedules of legislators and their duties is like listening to a hamster talk about playing linebacker in the NFL.
 
I don't think that all laws should be reviewed every 10 years, but I do believe that many laws should have expiration dates.

I think there is a lot of review of laws taking place--everytime someone wants to slip a loophole into an existing law, a lot of study had been done in knowing what to change and how to change it. I think that work should be done by non-partisan civil servants and not political staff only trying to help a small constituency.
 
I don't think that all laws should be reviewed every 10 years, but I do believe that many laws should have expiration dates.

I think there is a lot of review of laws taking place--everytime someone wants to slip a loophole into an existing law, a lot of study had been done in knowing what to change and how to change it. I think that work should be done by non-partisan civil servants and not political staff only trying to help a small constituency.

Your ideas make a whole lot more sense than the proposal in the OP. I like the idea of non political civil servants reviewing existing law and making recommendations.
 
Good god no. What a recipe for uncertainty and instability. I would be appalled if I couldn't be confident what the laws of the United States would be year to year because of the incessant expiration of laws. Not to mention the absurdity of having our legislature devoting the bulk of its time to the endless review of laws it already passed. We're the United States not some tinpot banana republic. Ridiculous.

Funny which ones has millions of mindless meant to do nothing but create a police state?
 
Np doubt with with Republicans firmly in control of majorities in both houses of Congress your statement may well prove prophetic.

If the tenth amendment had actually been enforced, FDR's nonsense would have never seen the light of day
 
I said no such thing that all laws are good laws. No such thing. I simply provided reality in the observation that there is simply no time available for a legislator to review 10% of ALL the laws ever passed each term in addition to their normal and usual duties of office.
*sigh* You're still missing the point, after it being explained twice, but now I sense you aren't even interested in differing points of view.

Carry on.
 
So congressmen don't spend as much time worrying about re-election as they do actually doing their jobs? So laws passed don't ever have unintended consequences?
No, don't you understand? No law is passed without careful considerations of the consequences, good and bad. These are selfless servants of the common man who tirelessly devote all their energies to Mr & Mrs Taxpayer.

Well the Democrats, anyway.
 
I don't think that all laws should be reviewed every 10 years, but I do believe that many laws should have expiration dates.
What would be the criteria for adding an expiration date or not adding an expiration date?

I think there is a lot of review of laws taking place--everytime someone wants to slip a loophole into an existing law, a lot of study had been done in knowing what to change and how to change it. I think that work should be done by non-partisan civil servants and not political staff only trying to help a small constituency.
The challenge would be to find non-partisan civil servants, then one's with the expertise to understand and interpret the law (since most times it's created by staffers who are attorneys) and then how to either reject or incorporate the new law, or to reject the loophole.
 
The idea that ALL laws sunset is kind of ridiculous. Some laws, like murder, should be obvious to keep all the time. Other laws, however, should require renewal. Problem is, how is that determined? How do we determine which ones are worthy of permanence and which are not... especially given the hyper-partisanship we have in today's political world?
 
If the tenth amendment had actually been enforced, FDR's nonsense would have never seen the light of day

Perhaps they did not see it as you do?
 
*sigh* You're still missing the point, after it being explained twice, but now I sense you aren't even interested in differing points of view.

Carry on.

I always do. Another poster - Ali Sheik I think - had a good idea to have a non partisan group of civil servants dedicated to reviewing old laws. That sounds like a decent proposal.
 
What? I don't understand that.

No, that was my auto correct stabbing me in the back..


Funny which ones has millions of mindless laws and regulations meant to do nothing but create a police state? America or a Banana Republic?
 
I always do. Another poster - Ali Sheik I think - had a good idea to have a non partisan group of civil servants dedicated to reviewing old laws. That sounds like a decent proposal.

That is all they will do is "review" nothing more.
 
Reviewing laws every ten years sounds like acknowledging the incompetence of legislators. How about making it take ten years to pass a law? That way it couldn't be a law serving someone's political agenda.
 
Reviewing laws every ten years sounds like acknowledging the incompetence of legislators. How about making it take ten years to pass a law? That way it couldn't be a law serving someone's political agenda.
Hadn't thought about it that way. :lol:

I have long thought, however, that we need to have a six month moratorium after a high profile tragedy before we enact a new law based on said tragedy. We end up with way too many bad laws by letting emotion and expediency rule the day.
 
Hadn't thought about it that way. :lol:

I have long thought, however, that we need to have a six month moratorium after a high profile tragedy before we enact a new law based on said tragedy. We end up with way too many bad laws by letting emotion and expediency rule the day.

I agree.
We also need to impress on our legislators that laws don't prevent anything, never have. And we need to somehow erase from the public perception the idea that making a law equals being tough on crime. Or terrorism.
 
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 are so many criminal laws and regulations at the Federal level alone that no person or agency can tell exactly how many there are and can only estimate. Couple that with the fact that we entered a legislative era of passing laws without reading them and it becomes a major problem in a country where ignorance of the law is not a defense. At minimum, laws should be reviewed if only to find out what they are and I suspect the vast majority of our legal code could sunset without anyone even noticing it was gone. Personally, I think its ridiculous to have more laws than any one person can have at least an elementary understanding of.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom