3
3
0
Canada has adopted a law that requires for that every new rule created an old one must be eliminated. It has produced measurable results:
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-red-tape-could-it-work-in-the-u-s
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/0129bg-fi-eng.asp
Note that no one really knows how many Federal Laws the US has.
http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-question-how-many-federal-laws-are-there/
Should we implement the same rule? Why or why not?
http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-red-tape-could-it-work-in-the-u-s
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rtrap-parfa/0129bg-fi-eng.asp
Note that no one really knows how many Federal Laws the US has.
http://blogs.loc.gov/law/2013/03/frequent-reference-question-how-many-federal-laws-are-there/
Should we implement the same rule? Why or why not?
Politics
Law
Rules
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 17
1
1
0
Get rid of all the unnecessary laws that have been passed outright, then worry about the creation of laws that make sense and are helpful to the citizens of this nation.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
“The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.”
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
― Tacitus, The Annals of Imperial Rome
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
We should operate in the same fashion regarding spending. Any new spending should be accompanied by commensurate cuts elsewhere.
(1)
(0)
SPC Charles Brown
I agree SSG Gerhard S., just so those cuts don't cut into the military pay and allowances of those still serving.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
It should be more than 1:1..... I would say the same regarding Executive orders.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
just read the bills before signed into law. Look what happened with Obamacare... Goes against the Constitution, and that looks like it's going to be shot down soon. a lot of people will lose your insurance because of this craziness
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
COL Ted Mc Regarding your question... "Given the length of today's legislation that is what would likely happen if actually reading the laws out loud were to be mandated."
IF only one bill were able to be passed in a year under such a proposal, I would suggest that would probably be a good thing. The only thing that might be better is if their ONE bill that they've invested so much time in, did NOT pass.
Our Federal government's propensity to pass such large, expensive and encroaching bills, laws, and regulations have gotten us into $18 trillion of debt, and hundreds of trillions of future unfunded liabilities. The less they can do FOR us, likely means the less they can do TO us.
Anyway, that was not the aim to my suggestion. My aim was to encourage brevity, and Constitutional adherence through LESS federal interference in our lives based on the constraints of our Constitution.
Sorry, I don't mean to go on... but I just realized that I hadn't actually answered your question.
Thank you for the opportunity to expound.
IF only one bill were able to be passed in a year under such a proposal, I would suggest that would probably be a good thing. The only thing that might be better is if their ONE bill that they've invested so much time in, did NOT pass.
Our Federal government's propensity to pass such large, expensive and encroaching bills, laws, and regulations have gotten us into $18 trillion of debt, and hundreds of trillions of future unfunded liabilities. The less they can do FOR us, likely means the less they can do TO us.
Anyway, that was not the aim to my suggestion. My aim was to encourage brevity, and Constitutional adherence through LESS federal interference in our lives based on the constraints of our Constitution.
Sorry, I don't mean to go on... but I just realized that I hadn't actually answered your question.
Thank you for the opportunity to expound.
(0)
(0)
COL Ted Mc
SSG Gerhard S. - Staff; You'll have to excuse me - I must have been having a moment when my sarcasm was obscured.
The ACTUAL effect of your suggestion would be to SEVERELY limit the number of pieces of legislation that could be passed because it would take so long to actually read any of them.
(You could cut the number even further by requiring that the same person read the whole piece of proposed legislation from start to finish - and explain any obscure points as they went along.)
(You could REALLY cut the number of pieces of legislation by requiring that a minimum of 75% of the members from each party be physically present - awake - and not using any electronic communication devices during the reading. [The reading would have to stop the minute you fell below 75% and would start up again where it left off as soon as Senator Fogbound got back from the bathroom - or where ever.].)
The people who benefit from the incredible complexity of (and the inclusion of stuff that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation in) the legislation are the people who actually write the legislation (and the unelected people who pay them to write it so that it includes the stuff that they want in it). Surely you didn't think that Senators and Representatives actually wrote legislation - did you?
The ACTUAL effect of your suggestion would be to SEVERELY limit the number of pieces of legislation that could be passed because it would take so long to actually read any of them.
(You could cut the number even further by requiring that the same person read the whole piece of proposed legislation from start to finish - and explain any obscure points as they went along.)
(You could REALLY cut the number of pieces of legislation by requiring that a minimum of 75% of the members from each party be physically present - awake - and not using any electronic communication devices during the reading. [The reading would have to stop the minute you fell below 75% and would start up again where it left off as soon as Senator Fogbound got back from the bathroom - or where ever.].)
The people who benefit from the incredible complexity of (and the inclusion of stuff that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the legislation in) the legislation are the people who actually write the legislation (and the unelected people who pay them to write it so that it includes the stuff that they want in it). Surely you didn't think that Senators and Representatives actually wrote legislation - did you?
(1)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I do not think Senators and Representatives write the legislation. I believe I stated as such below when I wrote. "Typically, it is the special interests that drive the creation of most regulation."
Sure, you could take my suggestion to many extremes, the result would be our Federal government doing LESS, which, in my opinion as well as our framer's opinion, that would be a good thing!
No offense meant, or taken on my part Sir.
Sure, you could take my suggestion to many extremes, the result would be our Federal government doing LESS, which, in my opinion as well as our framer's opinion, that would be a good thing!
No offense meant, or taken on my part Sir.
(0)
(0)
To answer the question. Yes the U.S. should work to reduce the bureaucracy. But not really sold on the one for one rule. As one contributor of the article suggested. "Maybe Instead of a one-for-one swap, write smarter and more careful regulations."
(1)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
MSgt (Join to see) I'm all for more careful legislation, but in a situation where no one can say how many rules and laws there are at the Federal level? We probably need to reduce them some.
(1)
(0)
1
1
0
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google