Monday, October 3, 2011

Monday Rule: House of Repeal and Redaction

All the duties of the Senate ought to be given to the House of Representatives as the sole governing body in the US. I am tempted to scrap the whole Senate altogether, for it gives the states of Wyoming (pop. 563,000) and Vermont (pop. 625,000) the same number of votes as the states of California (pop. 37,253,000) and Texas (pop. 25,145,00). While I would like to see it just scrapped, since it’s already there, I figure I could just hand over the responsibilities of a new house of Congress I have in mind. We need a House of Repeal and Redaction, a legislative body which has no power to write new laws, but which has the ability to repeal old, redundant, or constitutionally invalidated laws from the books, and which may even have the power to consolidate and redact legislation to simplify our legal system.

6 comments:

  1. The Senate gives a voice to states that would otherwise have no voice. With out it, as an entity, they would have no representation. Your solution seems to be to "let them die." I am in favor a stronger federal government, weakening the states, making rights more uniform. I am not, however, in favor of empower certain states further while taking the voice away from others, and leaving the federal government as it is.

    Alas, I also am not in favor of new legislative body whose mission is to tear down the foundations of our legal system.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What are you talking about? The citizens of California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania... really, lots of citizens in lots of states are not being represented so that small states can be over represented. You're trying to equate equal representation with "no voice." Removal of privilege is not oppression.

    Trust me, I'm not anarchist, but a lot of our laws are overly complex, and we still have laws on the books that have been overruled by the Supreme Court. The very fact that we have slavery and miscegenation laws on the books is embarrassing. Plus, a lot of laws are just stupid but are not repealed because it would take too much time, like drug prohibition. It would take years of serious, concerted effort to realize that goal, and we just have more important things to worry about. Unless you dedicate certain people to correcting the errors of those who have been writing laws unabated for hundreds of years running now, you end up with the convoluted mess we have now.

    Consider this: we're the oldest surviving continuous democracy around right now, we're bound to be the ones with the most extraneous and outdated laws on the books. How about this: a law must be over 100 years old to be edited. Does that alleviate your concerns?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bret

    What are you talking about? The citizens of California, Texas, Illinois, Florida, Arizona, Pennsylvania... really, lots of citizens in lots of states are not being represented so that small states can be over represented. You're trying to equate equal representation with "no voice." Removal of privilege is not oppression.

    With all due respect, you clearly don’t understand the purpose of the Senate. Everyone wants, in some cases needs, their state to succeed. In order for this to happen, their state must have a voice. RI will not ever have a significant voice in the House. You are making a corporate argument without even realizing it. Romney says corporations are backed up by people, so the corporation should have the same voice as a person has. However, the flaw in that reasoning is that small corporations have small voices and no one cares to hear it. The individual is like the smallest corporation of all. If GE’s executives support Obama, the GE corporation supports Obama, regardless of how loud the republicans inside the GE corporate entity protest.

    Let’s double our number of representatives. That will bring Montana’s total to 2 and Florida will then have 50. If Florida thinks the government should cut farm subsidies and use those funds for hurricane relief, Montana has no voice. Farm subsidies will be cut. In fact, Florida will win every single contest with Montana. Montana will be completely subservient to Florida. The only place Montana has a voice is in the Senate. If we are going to have state lines, state rules, and federal rules that relate to states, the Founders wanted checks and balances that prevent any single entity from gaining plenipotentiary control, just like you don’t.

    Removal of privilege is not oppression. Effective disenfranchisement, while leaving on the token ability, is oppressive. Also, your imperative is flawed. Disenfranchisement is universally considered oppression. You made that up.

    Trust me, I'm not anarchist, but a lot of our laws are overly complex, and we still have laws on the books that have been overruled by the Supreme Court. I agree with both of these things. If you wish to restructure the way Judicial Review works, I would definitely be open to an intellectual conversation about it.

    Judicial Review itself is somewhat unconstitutional. However, in Marbury vs. Madison the Judiciary decided it was not, in one of the greatest ironies in American history. The Judiciary declared that it can legislate from the bench when 9 men or women decide that what the majority of 535 legislators believe is constitutional, is not. People don’t realize how powerful the Judiciary is. They interpret the law and they make the law via Judicial Review. They are no more qualified to divine the intentions of the Founders than legislators are. Their interpretations are colored by ideology, just like everyone else’s is. If you want to reform the legal system, the Judiciary is the place to start.

    The very fact that we have slavery and miscegenation laws on the books is embarrassing. There is also a law against “annoying a squirrel.” Mature systems have lots of functionality complimented with lots of fat. It is the nature of a mature systems.

    Plus, a lot of laws are just stupid but are not repealed because it would take too much time, like drug prohibition. Tons of people approve of drug prohibition. It is not all about time and you know it.

    Unless you dedicate certain people to correcting the errors of those who have been writing laws unabated for hundreds of years running now, you end up with the convoluted mess we have now. And if you create this group, you throw out the Constitution and the American form of government as we know it today. You better hope this small oligarchy of Gods bestow a good law code upon us.

    [To Be Continued...]

    ReplyDelete
  4. [Conclusion …]
    Consider this: we're the oldest surviving continuous democracy around right now, we're bound to be the ones with the most extraneous and outdated laws on the books. How about this: a law must be over 100 years old to be edited. Does that alleviate your concerns? Not in the least. Many of the most important laws we have fall into that group.

    [THE END]

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Vermont (pop. 625,00)"

    Where the heck do you get these figures from?

    Vermont will secede and become an independent republic - as it once was - before it kneels down to Texas and California. Vermont's power in the Senate is the only thing keeping it as part of the union. Without its two Senate seats, Vermont would be way better off on its own.

    You know what, the Federal government consists of a bunch of ineffective imperialist clowns anyway. The more I think about it, the more I think the 10th Amendment is brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Clearly a typo, which I just corrected.

    I would love to go to war with Vermont. I won't fight for oil, but I will fight for ice cream.

    ReplyDelete

If your comment is too long, break it into multiple comments and post them all.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...