It’s not a new idea, but Instapundit is pushing it again, over at USA Today.
I’d like to see it happen, but I still like my idea of a Sunset Amendment. It would keep them so busy renewing the old laws that they wouldn’t have much time for new mischief. I had some related thoughts here a few months ago.
I would note, though, in thinking further, I’d probably make it a twenty-year sunset, rather than ten. That way, each law would be reviewed at least once per generation (assuming, of course, that “generations” still exist in a post-human future).
I worry that sunset would allow sudden moves to the left – which seems to be the only kind of moves we get these days – to be more quickly codified into law. E.G. Congress had to explicitly pass hate crime laws whereas if sunset had happened to the criminal code such things could be hidden in the replacement bill quite easily and quickly because the previous bill was going to sunset. So you would get the same kind of shenanigans we get every year with the budget only on everything. Couple that with an ineffective opposition of Democrat lite Republicans and it strikes me as a recipe for an express version of the present hand basket to hell.
People, why do we need to repeal laws when the President can get the word out to, like, not enforce them? Doesn’t even need an Executive Order — the President just has to issue an Executive Suggestion, or maybe only an Executive Wink and Nod.
I am talking of course of restrictions on immigration along with the President’s signature health care law? As this precendent has been set, someone tell me that President Cruz won’t have these, I won’t call them powers, how ’bout calling them “hey dude!”
In light of recent trends, I have been thinking about the “plain text” amendment being needed.
“No bill shall pass the House or Senate unless the text about to be voted upon is read aloud in its entirety, a quorum being present. No member who is absent from any part of the reading may vote yea or nay, but must abstain.”
That ought to keep bills a LOT shorter and avoids any “I didnt’ know that was in there!” surprises
I’d like a provision in a sunset amendment, barring any law from being renewed or re-enacted with even one vote from any Senator or Representative that has previously voted for it.
And in the case of original enactment by voice vote, all members at that time are disqualified from the later vote, regardless of whether they may have supported the law in the voice vote.
There might usefully also be “sunset” provisions for the legislaTORs as well as legislatION. Term limits, i.o.w. Something like “No person shall be eligible to serve more than 9 consecutive years in the House of Representative, nor more than 10 consecutive years in the presidency, nor more than 14 consecutive years in the Senate, nor more than 19 such years as a Justice of the Supreme Court.” This allows for a few people to fill an unexpired term, win re-election, but still plan to withdraw at the natural end of normal terms. I’m not sure about judges, but …
I note even under such limits a 25 year old might take a seat in the House, serve to age 35, take a Senate Seat and serve to about age 50, take the vice presidency, ascend after tragic circumstances, and win re-elections, and at 60 still have about two decades of life left to contribute on the High Court’s bench. Up or out. Or, at least, lay out for a term then start over without an incumbent’s advantages.