The forgotten branch of government.

[Rich]

Actually, I was thinking more of laws that can be applied to thee, but not to me. And this whole having to vote on a provision before you can read it fiasco the Dem's dreamed up. And start using sunset provisions on some of these taxation sprees.

[Rich Jordan]

I liked some of Heinlein's suggestions, like having a legislative house whose sole purpose was to overturn laws, and could do so with less than a majority vote. The thought (and I'm paraphrasing; its been too long since I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) was if a law couldn't command the support of at least 1/3rd of the populace, it didn't deserve to be a law.

[Rich Jordan]

Actually, I was thinking more of laws that can be applied to thee, but not to me. And this whole having to vote on a provision before you can read it fiasco the Dem's dreamed up. And start using sunset provisions on some of these taxation sprees.

The harshest and most stringent laws (or at least the consequences for violating them) should be applied primarily to elected officials and government employees. Gross malfeasance in a position of trust is the next thing to treason and should be treated and punished as such. All those corrupt officials languishing in club Fed prisons should be on death row instead. I'd also exclude them from executive pardons...

Some protection might be needed to prevent the dems (or admittedly some repubs) from using these laws to take out innocent opponents with extreme prejudice...

You know damn well the first thing the hildebeast will say if she wins is "well, pardon me! Oh, and Bill too... "

[JustinR]

+1 to what Pawpaw said.

What we really need to reboot our system is what Mark Levin proposes in The Liberty Amendments, and the Convention of States proposes in a slightly different but mostly the same manner. That is the only way I see left to us to try and fix this mess, short of the ammo box.

[McClarkus]

Actually, I was thinking more of laws that can be applied to thee, but not to me. And this whole having to vote on a provision before you can read it fiasco the Dem's dreamed up. And start using sunset provisions on some of these taxation sprees.

The harshest and most stringent laws (or at least the consequences for violating them) should be applied primarily to elected officials and government employees. Gross malfeasance in a position of trust is the next thing to treason and should be treated and punished as such. All those corrupt officials languishing in club Fed prisons should be on death row instead. I'd also exclude them from executive pardons...

Some protection might be needed to prevent the dems (or admittedly some repubs) from using these laws to take out innocent opponents with extreme prejudice...

You know damn well the first thing the hildebeast will say if she wins is "well, pardon me! Oh, and Bill too... "

Yes, well, speaking of Billy, There are sex crimes and then there are sex crimes done by people in "positions of trust" which amplify the penalty. These should be applied across the board

[Kommander]

I liked some of Heinlein's suggestions, like having a legislative house whose sole purpose was to overturn laws, and could do so with less than a majority vote. The thought (and I'm paraphrasing; its been too long since I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) was if a law couldn't command the support of at least 1/3rd of the populace, it didn't deserve to be a law.

I liked this idea as well. A bill needed a 2/3 majority to pass the one house and become a law and in the other house a 1/3 minority is all that was required to repeal a law. The only issue I can see with this, at least on the surface, is that the two houses could enter a constant cycle of passing and repealing the same law(s), which would be awful silly.

[randy]

I liked this idea as well. A bill needed a 2/3 majority to pass the one house and become a law and in the other house a 1/3 minority is all that was required to repeal a law. The only issue I can see with this, at least on the surface, is that the two houses could enter a constant cycle of passing and repealing the same law(s), which would be awful silly.

I can live with silly as long as it slows down the amount of sticking their nose into my business. Of course I consider gridlock a feature, not a bug and "do nothing Congress" a goal. And would not look askance at establishing a BuSab

[Netpackrat]

I liked this idea as well. A bill needed a 2/3 majority to pass the one house and become a law and in the other house a 1/3 minority is all that was required to repeal a law. The only issue I can see with this, at least on the surface, is that the two houses could enter a constant cycle of passing and repealing the same law(s), which would be awful silly.

I can live with silly as long as it slows down the amount of sticking their nose into my business. Of course I consider gridlock a feature, not a bug and "do nothing Congress" a goal. And would not look askance at establishing a BuSab

What Randy said. It's kind of the whole point.

[George guy]

I liked this idea as well. A bill needed a 2/3 majority to pass the one house and become a law and in the other house a 1/3 minority is all that was required to repeal a law. The only issue I can see with this, at least on the surface, is that the two houses could enter a constant cycle of passing and repealing the same law(s), which would be awful silly.

The simple solution to that would be to let one house pass the bill with a 2-year sunset, but leave the other house to renew it every two years thereafter.. Maybe let it go on a 5-year schedule once it holds up for 10 years. The only hiccup there is that the first house might be tempted to repackage a bill and try to pass it off as a different one, to circumvent the review procedure. Which would necessitate making that act a felony, which wouldn't mean anything unless someone is prepared to enforce it.

Which brings us back to BuSab.

My ideal system would involve a primarily volunteer service, overseen by State and Federal level boards of commissioners drawn from the jury pool every 2-4 years, with the authority to appoint prosecuting attorneys.

[JAG2955]

I liked some of Heinlein's suggestions, like having a legislative house whose sole purpose was to overturn laws, and could do so with less than a majority vote. The thought (and I'm paraphrasing; its been too long since I read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress) was if a law couldn't command the support of at least 1/3rd of the populace, it didn't deserve to be a law.

I liked this idea as well. A bill needed a 2/3 majority to pass the one house and become a law and in the other house a 1/3 minority is all that was required to repeal a law. The only issue I can see with this, at least on the surface, is that the two houses could enter a constant cycle of passing and repealing the same law(s), which would be awful silly.

I'm good with this idea, as long as a "clean bill" requirement is enacted first. No more poison-pilling, or attaching riders.