PDA

View Full Version : Political Nuclear Bomb, Sunset everything.


nicki
08-09-2008, 8:40 PM
Diane Feinstein has shown us the way, although I don't think that was her intention:eek:

The original AWB had a 10 year sunset which gave us a trial period to realize what a lead balloon it was.( No offense to Zeppelin).

What I have noticed over the years is that simple intiatives that make sense on a "gut level" pass, those that are written and require someone to read the fine print, fail.

What I propose is simple, a California Constitutional Amendment to sunset not only new laws, but laws currently on the books.

The truth is I know the current legislators will do nothing, they will pass the buck to future politicians and the future politicians will have the headaches of non action.

We term limit our elected officials, why not force a automatic review of what they did so that we can make "improvements" or just let things that turned out to be "turkeys" just expire.

Now, of course we would have to have a follow up proposition which would require that all laws that are enacted or reenacted by subject to constitutional review.

Probably another one making it easier to get "standing" so that we don't have to deal with the "Song and Dance" the Heller case went through.

Limiting the use of "rational basis" or less than "strict scruntiny" is something we also have to look at, hopefully someone here with far more legal knowledge here may chime in.:D

The above reforms could lay the groundwork to get us back to limited government in an orderly fashion.:43:

Justice Scalia made a complaint a few years back about legislators passing laws with the attitude that they will let the courts sort them out.:(

Our organization doesn't have to have to carry the ball if we make alliances with others. The real issue for me has always been freedom and that allows for a interdependent mindset.

I know that I have made points to reach across to the left and even if we do it and no one on the left accepts our offer to work together, we still win, and here is why.

The vast majority sits in the political middle and our appearance of trying to work with the left, gets us more of them.

KKBB
Nicki

M. D. Van Norman
08-09-2008, 8:46 PM
Wouldn’t it be great? The legislators would eventually be so busy keeping important laws on the books that they wouldn’t have time to pass the silly stuff … especially after we make their positions part time and only open sessions on February 29th. :43:

But I won’t hold my breath. :p

RANGER295
08-09-2008, 8:53 PM
That sounds good to me. I think that we should also have an initiative to amend the state constitution so that for every law that they pass, they have to take two off the books that fall under the same subcommittee. So for example, if there was a new gun control law that would fall under the House Public Safety Committee, they would have to pick two bills that would fall under their jurisdiction for review to strike from the books if the new bill passed.

Matt C
08-09-2008, 8:56 PM
Heh, I was just saying that to someone the other day.

rayra
08-09-2008, 9:05 PM
I like the idea of forcing a greater number of laws OFF the books, in order to pass another. And you better close the loophole or the bastards will just be submitting new bills that incorporate the intent of the laws they are superficially striking.

Better to restore our forms of representative government to the citizen-statesmen model and make them part time positions (with part-time pay) and force the bums out of political office. Get rid of the 'profeshunal'-politician class, the people who aren't competent in any other endeavour of their lives and instead latch on like parasites to our tax dollars.

hawk1
08-09-2008, 9:05 PM
Her only intention for the 10 year sunset was to get the needed votes to pass that bill. It was not written into the original bill. If I recall correctly, she needed a couple more votes. The only way she could get them was to add the sunset clause.
She's still a fool so don't give her any extra credit for it.

Knight
08-09-2008, 9:09 PM
Sounds good in theory, but would it really work?

With the sheer number of laws on the books, the amount of time it would take to go over all of them would be too much to make it feasible.

. . . which of course makes me like the idea even more, but still - a blanket sunset clause would never be considered for that reason, I would think.

glockman19
08-09-2008, 9:11 PM
We term limit our elected officials, why not force a automatic review of what they did so that we can make "improvements" or just let things that turned out to be "turkeys" just expire.

Great Idea.

But.....

What if that meant that we would "sunset" the second amendment?

aplinker
08-09-2008, 9:20 PM
Great Idea.

But.....

What if that meant that we would "sunset" the second amendment?



I would suggest you could create laws that never sunset, with some overwhelming majority.

Having every law on the book come up again gives too much power to the current government, especially if a majority carries. Remember, filibusters or avoiding bringing things to a vote is often the most powerful tool of a minority (and sometimes we're in it!). So, having to vote on everything means all of the laws that protect us could disappear.

Besides, think of the headaches for us all in trying to keep up with constantly changing PC.

sorensen440
08-09-2008, 9:21 PM
we would be fighting replacement laws every 2 years

RANGER295
08-09-2008, 9:58 PM
Great Idea.

But.....

What if that meant that we would "sunset" the second amendment?

Not a sunset on the constitution, only new laws that were passed. I do not think that you could, or would want it to affect constitutional amendments.

pizzatorte
08-09-2008, 10:58 PM
I'd like to see a cap on the number of laws that can be on the books at any one time. If they think that some amazing new circumstance has arisen which cannot be handled with existing laws (in reality this happens so rarely as to be quite notable), then they have to remove an existing law.

It'd also be nice to see a flat out moratorium on all new laws for one year, just to see how things go. I have a feeling the sun would keep shining and the world would not end.

nicki
08-10-2008, 1:27 PM
The Sunset law would not apply to voter passed intiatives or the constitution.

It would just apply to legislators. If they had a really important legislation that needed to be in force longer than 10 years, they could always put it on the ballot for voter approval.

Right now alot of time is spent fighting old laws. Under this model, the laws would just expire unless renewed.

Some things to keep in mind, the people voting for the laws will not be the people who originally voted for them, so that discourages rubber stamping.

If we follow up that we have a process to easily challenge laws without having to "break the law" and risk fines,jail or criminal records, we can stop bad laws from taking effect.

Many laws we have on the books would never pass today.

Sure, we risk the politicians being so tied up that they forget to pass important laws, but with 10 years notice, the public wrath against them for incompetence would limit such problems.

When I explain to people that the only way to challenge bad laws is to break them, they say, that is nuts.

Generally, most people support what I call "Good Government Reforms".

The Public records act constitutional amendment passed with 83 percent of the vote. Even with overwhelming support, many government agencies still thumb their noses at PRA requests.

Send a PRA to the LAPD or LASO about their ccw policies and see how fast and how well they will answer your request.

This is a type of intiative in which we could reach across the political spectrum which would stregthen our numbers.

Nicki

VegasND
08-10-2008, 1:37 PM
Would there be an exception for the sunset law so it wouldn't sunset too?

Or, would it have to be renewed every X years as well?

This seems to be a good idea...

tombinghamthegreat
08-10-2008, 2:06 PM
Kinda like the idea of a sunset law on laws not protected by the constitution, if politicians are too busy trying to keep laws on the books they might not harass the individual as much.

elSquid
08-10-2008, 2:16 PM
I'd also like it if the politicians actually respected the constitution. My not-thought-through-proposal: a three strikes and you're out law. Any laws that are overturned as unconstitutional as a result of a supreme court decision result in a demerit being recorded against all those who voted to pass it. Once an individual reaches three points they are barred from public office, public service, and they are not allowed to work in any direct relationship with the gov't.

I can dream...

-- Michael

nicki
08-10-2008, 2:29 PM
Sunset on everything would have to be a state constitutional amendment and it would require another constitutional amendment to repeal or modify it.

The average person is going to read the proposal, say, 10 years is plenty of time to review what you have already done and will force a house cleaning so to speak.

The reality is our elected officials will pass the buck and nothing will be done for 8 years, but that isn't our problem, is it:43:

I feel sorry for the poor saps who are in office who will have to deal with the mess (not really). But that is the way it is.

Nicki

Number 6
08-10-2008, 10:06 PM
This sounds like a manifestly bad idea. Our system of government is already inefficient and time consuming. I see that as a good thing, but to add more complexity to an already complex system would make the legislature impotent. I think there are more effective means to reign in the amount of problematic legislation.

nicki
08-10-2008, 11:05 PM
The legislature on average passes 1700 new laws each year, and that doesn't include the regulations made to interpret the laws.

What is a "pistol grip", how about a "flash hider", get my point.

Excessive laws and regulations discourage investment, they bog business down with regulations so that resources have to be allocated to complying with government regulations rather than creating jobs.

The truth is we need a major house cleaning and a sunset system would allow a orderly transition across the board.

While I personally would like to scrap everything and start from scratch, the amount of chaos that would create would kill the country.

10 years is more than enough time for our officials to make changes.

Our legal system is like metastic cancer, if we don't take drastic action, it will kill our country.

We have term limits on our elected officials, why not have automatic review of what they did after they leave office by someone new.

If they passed good laws, renew them with improvements. If they passed stupid laws, the laws will just expire.

Stupid laws are often emotionally based laws which when implemented, they don't work. Under this proposal, they run their course, people see that the laws didn't work and they just expire.

Maybe it is a bad idea, but what we have now stinks. Our problems are not one law, but the whole system which is why we need a massive fix,

wutzu
08-10-2008, 11:51 PM
Why not Heinlein's suggestion? Electoral representatives represent the people in blocs of 4,000 voters. If you can get 4,000 people to vote for you, then you have one vote in the legislature, 8,000 gives you two votes, and so on. These representatives feed into a Bicameral Legislature, where the upper house passes laws with a 2/3rds majority, and the lower repeals laws with only a 1/3rds minority.

(Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for more ideas such as these)

DarthSean
08-11-2008, 11:53 AM
Would it be possible to attach pro gun legislation to other bills as riders?

Fore example, add a rider to allow pistol grips and detachable magazines, next bill add a rider to allow flash supressors, next bill add full cap rifle mags, next bill add full cap pistol mags and so on?

workinwifdakids
08-11-2008, 6:05 PM
What if that meant that we would "sunset" the second amendment?

:banghead:

Sweet Jesus, tell me you're kidding.

The 2nd Amendment grants nothing - it simply puts into writing an eternal right granted us by the Laws of Nature or Nature's God.

There was an exam on this, and the answers were written with the blood of good men. If we don't know that the 2nd Amendment confers no right, then they died in vain.