-
Judge Pryor Gains New Post, Respect
June 12, 2013 | 2 comments
-
D-Day Reflections
June 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack
May 22, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Curl is Right: Don’t Dismiss Benghazi
May 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 3 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Our friend Philip Howard, author of The Death of Common Sense and Life Without Lawyers, helped organize a conference earlier this week on how to ged rid of “obsolete law.” Taking two slightly different angles (also slightly overlapping) to ideas discussed therein, I have columns bases on the conference at CFIF and at the University of Mobile website. This is an area where conservatives and the center-left can actually find common ground.
View all comments (3) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/02/10/eliminating-obsolete-law
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
RJ| 2.10.12 @ 2:03PM
My concern is that this plan is dependent upon Congress. A better solution would be to institutionalize a branch of government to offset the expansion of legislation.
Please consider a constitutional amendment to create a fourth branch of government with authority to revoke legislation that fails to serve the national interest. Its power would be similar the a presidential veto, but could only come into effect after the legislation had a chance to prove its merit, say 5 years. Such an institution would assist in bringing an end to the permanence of unnecessary government legislation and programs.
The Congress, subject to political pressure and distracted by numerous other issues, has proven itself unable to sufficiently monitor the effectiveness of past legislation and remove failed or obsolete legislative acts.
In keeping with the Founders’ principle in distributing power, the revocation branch could consist of nine individual “revocators” with the following groups each selecting three revocators: 1) the House of Representatives voting by state delegation; 2) the State Governors by majority vote; and 3) the President by appointment. At the end of each session of Congress, each group would select one revocator to serve for a single six-year term. A majority vote by the revocators would void legislation. To limit improper influence, revocators would be prohibited from holding local, state or federal office for no less than six years after their term expired.
This selection process would (1) allow the people to be represented through their Congressional representatives; (2) return representation to state governments which has been lacking since the 17th Amendment; and (3) include consideration of the executive branch’s experience in administering legislation. The purpose of having the House vote by state delegation is to reduce the influence of party politics in favor of state interests. It is also consistent with the House’s voting for President under the 12th Amendment. Selection of the revocators at the end of congress, rather than the beginning, is to ensure that the selecting groups have more experience in the workings of government.
While the idea of a new branch of government is novel and therefore some may see it as contrary to traditional conservatism, its potential to promote limited government is much stronger than any abuse it could create. If a popular law was revoked, nothing would stop Congress from passing new legislation. Since our society is comfortable with a presidential veto before legislation goes into effect, why not have a subsequent opportunity to "veto" legislation after it has an unsatisfactory track record?
Curtis Rasmussen| 2.10.12 @ 6:30PM
We already have a system of checks and balances that has been corrupted by liberal thought over decades. Now you want to add another branch to entrench the corruption even further?
RJ| 2.10.12 @ 7:04PM
The only thing it could do is eliminate existing legislation and reduce the role of government. It couldn't touch the Constitution. It would help offset expansionist tendencies by the Congress and we need a balance in favor of limited government.