Politics as "productive work".

You know how we get good Federal law? Repeal every law since 1890.

Then what do we need to do? Update copyright, electronics and intellectual property laws. That should take two months, maybe. The only state laws that need negotiation, rather than repeal, are age of consent laws. All that remains are budgets (which the executive usually submits) judicial and cabinet appointments, treaties and declarations of war. Two weeks a year. Easy.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 7/13, 4:11pm)

Post 21

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 4:23pm

That's a great idea, Ted.

1890 includes all the good stuff Radical Republicans fought to get into law, which protects the rights of minorities, and makes them full fledged citizens. How many know which Amendment to the Constitution that is? There's two of them, really.

Quiz on Wednesday. :)

Post 22

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 4:29pm

I picked 1890 due to anti-trust.

Post 23

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 4:36pm

Teresa,

Yes, I'm sure I've never been on a city council. The board I sit on is a homeowner's association - a private corporation.
----------

You said, "Breaking and entering on Oak Street requires a different law than the breaking and entering on Maple street. They're both breaking and entering crimes, why do they need different laws?"

That's silly - do you seriously think I'd call for anything like that?
-----------

You asked for a good law that I'd like to see now. Here is one:

Neither the House nor the Senate shall pass any bill whose full text, including all amendments, has not been public at least 30 days before it can be voted on. (a clause could permit passage of emergency laws, but require a 2/3 majority vote. And those voted in under emergency conditions would automatically sunset after 30 days if not renewed.)

There is a bill in the house that would make it illegal to vote on a bill that hasn't been posted online for 72 hours - that just isn't long enough.
------------

Post 24

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 4:46pm

A bill should not be voted on until it has been displayed for as many days as it has pages.

Post 25

Monday, July 13, 2009 - 6:31pm

Making law to accommodate common sense is just plain sad, Steve, but gotta hand it to you for coming up with a good law.

Post 26

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 6:06am

Steve,

I like that law too, but don't see why it shouldn't be at least 90 days. It'd easily take 30 days just to get some people's attention.

There are additional considerations though - for instance, should (or shouldn't) there be some feedback mechanism to assure members of congress hear what their constituency has to say about said law? Should members of congress be restrained in any way from bucking their constituency (aside from being voted out after it is too late)?

jt

Post 27

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 10:27am

Jay,

90 days is just fine. There is another law I'd like to see. The ability to recall a congressman. Many state constitutions have such a thing, but not the federal constitution. The thinking might be that they are only there for two years, so why bother - just vote them out at the end of two years. But I think it would have a powerful effect to be able to remove them from office without waiting - and it should include a clause making it illegal for an member of congress to receive any retirement benefits if they are recalled. Senators should be appointed by the state legislature as they once were - and they should be open to recall as well.

Post 28

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 12:16pm

Not just 90 days, but with 90% concurrence of both houses of the legislature.

It should be really hard to appropriate money, and it should only be for stuff that virtually everyone agrees is a worthwhile project, and for which everyone has had ample time to pick holes in the rationale being advanced for the theft.

You just can't get to minarchism if 51% of the legislature can steal from the other 49%. Majority rule democracy pretty much guarantees an expansive government, given enough time.

Hell, in Hawaii a 90% rule would still get you a huge government, seeing as how the legislature has 8 alleged Republicans out of 76.

Post 29

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 2:08pm

Steve,

I like the recall idea, and especially the idea that anyone recalled loses their (inexcusably generous) congressional pension. Such pensions should have some minimum requirements (something better than just one day in office), and should not kick in anyhow before 62.

jt

Post 30

Tuesday, July 14, 2009 - 2:22pm