• 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
Yes, one of the laws that definitely needs to be replaced is the gun law
 
eohrnberger said:
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.
Click to expand...
There ya go. There's the workaround. Nobody (in this thread) said they had to be renewed one-by-one.
 
radcen said:
There ya go. There's the workaround. Nobody (in this thread) said they had to be renewed one-by-one.
Click to expand...

If the individual laws are being reviewed for their efficacy, then really, what's the point?
 
haymarket said:
Perhaps they did not see it as you do?
Click to expand...

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
 
Socrates said:
Yes, one of the laws that definitely needs to be replaced is the gun law
Click to expand...

true, the federal government has no proper power in this area
 
eohrnberger said:
If the individual laws are being reviewed for their efficacy, then really, what's the point?
Click to expand...
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.


TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom