We’ve spent a lot of time in this class talking about new laws, laws that should be, laws that shouldn’t be, why we do or don’t need X, Y, or Z law. Don’t you ever want to just ditch the whole thing and start all over again?
Well, to a much lesser degree, that’s what Kansas Senator Sam Brownback is talking about in his platform for governor. He has proposed a state Office of the Repealer, “whose job it would be to start disposing of all the silly, needless, over-the-top regulations that state officials have dreamed up.” I’m not saying that laws to protect children from stalkers are a bad idea, but I do think that yes, we’ve gone a little overboard in law-ing this and outlaw-ing that. This isn’t an original concept either; according to the article, both Missouri and Michigan are repealing some out-of-date statutes.
You might be wondering why, in an intellectual freedom blog, I’m writing about doing -away- with laws instead of adding new ones to protect our rights. Well, think about how the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” When the First Amendment was first written and signed into effect, the people who wrote it had no concept of a computer or internet predators. I don’t think that they imagined that freedom of religion could include those who don’t even HAVE a religion, and how to protect the rights of those as well. I also doubt that they envisioned a day and age where terrorism would be so close to the front of daily lives, and where biological weapons were a reality. So, now we add statutes and laws and more amendments to keep up with the times, or at least try to. Thinking of how much paper we’d use if we printed out all the laws the U.S. has all at once makes my head want to spin like Linda Blair’s in The Exorcist.
Do I know how it should be rewritten? Nope. I just think that what we have now really isn’t working for anyone—not for those who want total free speech, not for those who want a complete lockdown, and certainly not for the majority of us who fall somewhere in the middle of all that.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/13/us/politics/13repealer.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tonya,
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed your post and like you, I think I fall somewhere in the middle of all that. Your post made me think about some of the dumb laws I have heard of and when I investigated some of Indiana's dumb laws, I found some funny ones.
Here is the link:
http://www.idiotlaws.com/dumb_laws/indiana/
One of the funny ones was that you can't throw your couch at your neighbor in Warsaw. Some of the other laws aren't necessarily funny, just outdated.
Leah
I agree that there are some dumb laws, but I think that it is important for lawmakers to update based on the time. For instance, the Founding Fathers would not have thought about the internet, but it is important to consider sex offenders talking with children on the web.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the Office of the Repealer, it sounds like an interesting idea, but what criteria will be used to repeal laws and what type of people will the repealers be? Hopefully various viewpoints are represented.
Thanks for your great post!
Hello ladies.. I too am curious about the Office of the Repealer and who and how these changes would be made. I immediately thought of the Tea Party people and this sounds like something they would get behind. Can we trust this Repealer? What is his or her agenda? Would this be a setback for IF?
ReplyDeleteMost outdated laws are not enforced anyway. This would just add another agency of government when we should be cutting costs (I know he is referring to a STATE agency, but still..).
ReplyDeleteMy concern is that the person or persons who make these decisions, would use this as an opportunity to change laws that certain groups or political find objectionable, without going through the proper legislative process. Instead perhaps the legislature should set aside one day each session to repeal laws that either citizens or legislators feel are obsolete.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure that as times and technology have changed, there are not only some laws but policies that people would like to change. I often wonder if libraries would ever like to turn back time and un-do some of the services and or resources that they provide. Way back when who would have thought that there would be a need to filter "bad" websites or that there would be such long lines of people wanting to use the computers at the library or be able to check out newly released DVD s.
ReplyDeleteTo me, it seems silly to increase the size of government in order to reduce the laws of government when the judicial system will take care of that for us--as silly laws and laws that would now be deemed unconstitutional get challenged in court, the courts will strike them down. It may be slower going, but as someone else pointed out, most such laws are not even enforced any more and it seems like a waste of time and resources to worry about them until they are.
ReplyDelete~Lynn
The First Amendment is rewritten periodically; not the actual text of course, but court decisions that interpret what those brief words mean. Those decisions take into account new challenges, such as technology and sexual predators, and try to reconcile our country's fundamental principles with unforeseen circumstances.
ReplyDeleteAs Lynn noted, unconstitutional laws can be struck down, and Mike mentioned that many outdated laws are not enforced. Our law enforcement officers have discretion to decide not to enforce certain ordinances. And as Kathy noted, the legislature can repeal laws that are no longer appropriate for our times. These are the mechanisms that were established to alleviate this problem and we know they are subject to the appropriate checks and balances. Who would the Office of the Repealer be responsible to?
I actually have issues with this as well. I agree with several other people that it's redundant because courts and law enforcement kill laws all the time. For that matter, sure it would be hard to print to print all the laws in a state, but why would you have to?
ReplyDeleteI also agree that it would be a great way to gut all the laws one particular side/party doesn't like. An office like this with this much power is just asking to be abused.
We are truly a litigious society. That some states have found it necessary to create an office to repeal laws viewed as outdated merely demonstrates this fact. Let’s take a step back shall we. As you mentioned the first amendment states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Let’s focus on the petitioning the government part. Someone somewhere thought it was a good idea to prohibit liquor stores from selling cold soft drinks (http://www.dumblaws.com/law/417) or for waitresses to carry drinks into a restaurant (http://www.dumblaws.com/law/1421). My studies have influenced me to believe that the constitution is a living document designed to change to fit the needs of a growing democracy. That’s why the framers of the constitution place mechanisms in it to amend its content if not its underlying principles. We as an informed citizenry need to take advantage of those mechanisms while remaining ever on guard against its abuses.
ReplyDelete