"There ought to be a law" - well, yes!

[anotherKevin]

Coming to the USA from England, many years ago, I first noticed that there weren't centuries of accumulated cruft on the law books. Then I noticed that this was being addressed by a continual flood of new laws - "No you fools" I cried; I knew how this ended up.

Here in CA, my typical response to measures on the ballot is to vote against them by default. We don't need new laws, I thought.

But recently I have changed my mind.

It occurred to me that most of the damage that gets done to our rights is by laws - once they're passed they typically stick around forever. I don't recall the last time I heard of a previous law now being dropped. Maybe it's because the process to remove a law is just too difficult, or maybe it's not the focus of the politicians. Either way, I have come to the conclusion that, purity of constitutional intent aside, the proper response is to get laws and bills passed that re-inforce our rights.

Some evidence that this might be so is castle doctrine, and CCW laws and repricocity. You clearly shouldn't need "permission" to defend yourself, or bear arms, but the fact is you do. Yet once a castle doctrine or CCW law is passed there is massive momentum and benefit that come from it.

 

[SoCalShooter]

^ I would agree. Sometimes to undo the laws that hurt us you need to have another law that nullify them. Even as backwards and does not make sense.

 

[TallPine]

Whenever there are initiative/referendum issues on the ballot, my general rule is to vote NO if it is a new law or increase in regulation, and to vote YES if the issue repeals an existing law.

 

[tmajors]

I vote no on everything including the section of should so and so judge keep his seat.

The only time I vote yes is when a "yes" means "no" (don't you love those ones) or when someone can actually convince me a "yes" is a good thing (that has never happened).

 

[El Tejon]

Time for a "House of Repeal" a la Heinlein's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress.

 

[romma]

If politicians are not writing new laws, who needs them? Ergo, politicians writing new laws creates job security...

 

[El Tejon]

Maybe we can get the legislature to meet every ten years?

 

[alucard0822]

Prior to the passage of the 17th ammendment(senate elected by popular vote) the senate was elected indirectly by state legislatures with the purpose of dealing with internal legislation (interstate commerce/pay raises), representing the states interst, and as a check aggainst popular but unjust and possibly unconstitutional laws as they moved from the house to the president. This was one of the main ammendments that the progressives managed to pass along with the 16th(income tax) and 18th (prohibition), basically it streamlined the ability to pass laws due to the fact that senators were now elected by mostly uninformed people, and allowed the unconstitutional (untill the 18th ammendment) prohibition, NFA, most of The New Deal, and bans on most intoxicating substances. In practice this movement and these amendments started many of our modern nanny state practices and changed the structure of the legislative branch to include 2 houses to pass bills affecting the general populous and leaves unjust laws to be challenged and repealed by the judicial branch. The older system was to have unjust laws challenged in the senate before it ruined anyones life or took away too much freedom, and partially because of that now there is a shift in power to the federal govt and a flood of crappy bills making it all the way through.


Libertarianism 101 as understood by Jeremy

 

[armedandsafe]

We make a terrible mistake when we allow our representatives (hired hands) to call themselves "lawmakers."

Pops