Laws you would like enacted, repealed or changed

[Loren Booda]

What laws would you like enacted, repealed or changed?

 

[SticksandStones]

The first things that come to mind:
-Lower the drinking age to 18.

-Legalize marijuana.

-Tax gasoline.

-End both of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

-Begin wide-spread reform to stop global warming, including heavy taxes on CO2 emissions by factories.

-Tax goods imported from countries with little/no worker rights in such a way that it would be cheaper to produce them in the US or at least countries that respect their workers.

-Make lobbying by corporations equivalent to treason. Congress should answer only to the people they are elected to represent, not big-business.

-Criminalize discrimination based on sexual orientation.

-Dispose of 50% or more of the United State's atomic-weapon arsenal.

-Pass a law requiring the President to renew any authorization for military action every two years. Any president that fails to do so, even if they are off by as little as a day, will be immediately impeached, removed from office, and charged with treason.

-Cap military funding in half, and appropriate half of that extra money to education.

-Require the President to give weekly, televised updates to the people he/she serves.

-Repeal the No Child Left Behind Act.

-Declassify any and all information in the government that isn't an immediate security risk.

-End the "War on Drugs" in general. It's a waste of money that could be spent on giving children an education.

-Provide funding to achieve a >75% level of alternative-energy usage in the US by 2020 (or a reasonable date).

 

[Cyrus]

I like the way you think SticksandStones.

 

[devil-fire]

i would like to see a comprehensive set of laws relating to intelligence agencies and terrorist threats. it seems to be the case that laws are made to put people at ease, then ignored when something big comes up. laws should be designed in a way that if something big comes up, appropriate action isn't illegal and doesn't need to be kept secret. i mean the government is working by a set of rules to combat terrorism and other international threats, yet this set of rules isn't available to the public! ...unless (god save us all) the rules are made up as they go along.

there should be a legal justification for things deemed necessary to prevent a catastrophe greater then the degradation of civil liberties and human rights.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

All vehicles with an empty GVW over 4000 Lbs [would include most SUVs] are treated as tractor-trailers - required to drive in the right-most lanes, never to exceed 55 mph, and subject to stiffer penalties for moving violations.

Repeal all laws that directly limit personal choice based on either the indirect, potential financial risk to the public, or on the subjective interpretation of acceptable risk. Examples of existing laws to be repealed [for adults] would include seatbelt laws, and motorcycle helmet laws.

 

[devil-fire]

whats wrong with seatbelt and helmet laws?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

whats wrong with seatbelt and helmet laws?

The justification for them. Certainly everyone should wear seatbelts and helmets, but it isn't the government’s job to worry about this. The justification often used for laws like these is the potential for costs to the public in the event of more frequent and more serious injuries paid for by public services and assistance, or through increased insurance premiums. Other times, perhaps it is as simple as the government claiming that it has the implicit right to regulate such matters of choice. I fundamentally reject that claim. [also, I suspect this is often more about insurance profits than the public welfare]

I see nothing to differentiate laws like this from laws potentially regulating our dietary choices [as was just done in New York re trans-fats, and which I predicted [fat laws] many years ago based on this logic],the amount of exercise that we get, the activities that we might enjoy like skydiving, SCUBA diving, or even motorcycle riding itself, the amount of alcohol, Coca-Cola, or coffee that we consume, how often we see a doctor,... really any personal choice that might potentially affect the public through medical costs, or anything that can be labeled a "public health concern". With seatbelt and helmet laws, I believe that we crossed the line between protecting the public, and regulating personal choices that only affect the individual directly, and the public indirectly - the difference between wearing a seatbelt, and driving 30 mph over the speed limit in a residential zone, for example.

Since law and the interpretation of law are based on precedence, I see these laws as the opening of Pandora’s box. I see nothing to set a limit on how far this goes and I see it as a fundamental violation of my inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness, and my personal liberty. Also, options as simple as threats of canceled insurance, refused claims, denied benefits, and education, might work equally well. If you want a person to wear a motorcycle helmet, show them a picture of what happens when you don’t.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I predict that within about twenty years, depending out how quickly the technology comes along, the goverment, insurance companies, or employers will begin monitoring our daily excrement by using smart toilets online. This information will be used to force the proper personal choices.

Here's a big one for big brother!

 

[verty]

Repeal the No Child Left Behind Act

Why is this so unpopular, if I may ask?

Hmm, well one clause I certainly disagree with is this one, it shocks me that it was voted for:

In particular, the bill states that no school receiving Department of Education funds:

shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America ... that wishes to conduct a meeting within that designated open forum or limited public forum, including denying such access or opportunity or discriminating for reasons based on the membership or leadership criteria or oath of allegiance to God and country of the Boy Scouts of America.

 

[Moridin]

I think that instead of taxing gasoline, more time and money should be spent on developing alternative fuel.

SticksandStones, your ideas about war just does not work in the real life. There is no point in ending US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US forces is almost the only thing keeping those countries from total annihilation. It would undermine the greatest nation of Earth and terrorism would as a result be proven to work and used more. No one wants that.

As for your ideas for a law to requiring the President to renew any authorization for military action every two years can be considered by some to be rather ignorant of politics and world affairs to some extent. Sounds like wishful thinking, rather than something than can actually happen. That is not the way US politics works and will also undermine the authority of the President. The entire US system is built on what has remained pretty much constant in terms of major structure. It will also undermine the country as a whole not to have a strong leader. You see, that is what having a President is all about. The Us could be ruled entirely by Congress, but that would not work.

 

[SticksandStones]

Why is this so unpopular, if I may ask?

Because it creates a bunch of arbitrary standards without any way of reaching them. If a school doesn't already have the money to reach those standards, then they lose funding and thus will have an even harder time trying to reach these standards.

It creates fairly shady dealings in the schools where people who deserve to fail are passed simply so that the school isn't harmed.

As for your ideas for a law to requiring the President to renew any authorization for military action every two years can be considered by some to be rather ignorant of politics and world affairs to some extent.

Then perhaps they should say why?

Sounds like wishful thinking, rather than something than can actually happen. That is not the way US politics works and will also undermine the authority of the President.

Of course that isn't the way it works, that's why it needs to be changed so that it is. If we kept everything that "way it is" we wouldn't need any new laws at all. As for undermining the authority of the president: letting him mindlessly fight wars like Iraq and Vietnam against the will of the people undermines the authority of the only people who matter: the people of the United States. The President doesn't have the authority to declare war - congress does. Making him get authorization to make war and then renew that authorization simply keeps him in check and prevents Vietnam's and Iraq's.

It will also undermine the country as a whole not to have a strong leader.

Please explain how. The power of the president is thus: keep the Congress in check. Make sure they don't pass laws that go against the constitution, and that's it. He can veto or approve a bill. He's also the commander-in-chief, but only in that he acts as head of the armed forces. He doesn't get to declare war, Congress does. As such, he shouldn't be allowed to keep fighting wars that go against the will of the people.

I like the way you think SticksandStones.

Thanks.

 

[Astronuc]

It will also undermine the country as a whole not to have a strong leader.

Stalin and Mao were strong leaders - and look what happened.

A strong leader must be ethical and moral, not arbitrary and capricious.

It is corruption or otherwise unethical or immoral behavior which undermines a country.

The problem, as I see it, in recent US history has been a complicity between the president and one party of congress, which undermines the integrity of the government and political system. There was little or no checks and balances on the administration by the 109th congress, nor the 108th or 107th congresses for that matter.

 

[Moridin]

Stalin and Mao were strong leaders - and look what happened.

Yes, no one dared to challenge Russian or China in a full out war, because they knew that the casualties would be enormous. Sure, their entire socioeconomic system when in the toilet, but that is not really the point.

My point was to emphasis that internal conflict will most often jeopardize external conflicts.

Please explain how. The power of the president is thus: keep the Congress in check. Make sure they don't pass laws that go against the constitution, and that's it. He can veto or approve a bill. He's also the commander-in-chief, but only in that he acts as head of the armed forces. He doesn't get to declare war, Congress does. As such, he shouldn't be allowed to keep fighting wars that go against the will of the people.

Actually, to my knowledge, it is the role of the US Supreme Court to regulate the usage of power. Even if the President uses his veto, the Congress can still overrule it, provided there is enough support. Is the Congress the voice of the people, or the voice of large-scale, international corporations? It is a rhetorical question by the way.

 

[russ_watters]

Why is this so unpopular, if I may ask?

Ask a teacher...

I don't really agree with a lot of those, but I don't know if this thread is meant to argue them, so I'll just throw in one of my own:

-End the outlawing of nuclear fuel reprocessing.

 

[russ_watters]

-Dispose of 50% or more of the United State's atomic-weapon arsenal.

It isn't quite half and I don't know where the progress is, but... http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/fstockpile.asp

Personally, I think we can make do with under a thousand.

 

[Moonbear]

I think that instead of taxing gasoline, more time and money should be spent on developing alternative fuel.

Fuel taxes often fund highway maintenance, so I'd really prefer that was kept (unless you really prefer toll roads, but having grown up in NJ, my opinion is that having to stop for tolls is really a pain and just worsens traffic), but I wouldn't object to earmarking a portion of fuel taxes for R&D on alternative fuels.

The only thing that comes to mind at the moment are blue laws...the laws that limit sales of things on Sundays, which are based on religious views, and don't account for all the people who don't treat Sundays as a special day. It makes no sense at all to have laws that prohibit sales on a particular day of the week. If individual business owners wish to close the business on a given day or days of the week, that's fine, but shouldn't be dictated by any government body. For example, an orthodox Jewish business owner might prefer to close their business from sundown on Friday through Saturday, so it makes no sense for them to not be allowed to open on Sunday. Where I currently live, you can buy beer and wine at the local grocery store on Sunday, but not liquor from the liquor store. Those sorts of laws make no sense. Alcohol is alcohol, and you can get just as drunk from beer and wine as from hard liquor, and I'm not sure what's so special about Sunday for limiting liquor purchases.

 

[sara_87]

'There is no point in ending US occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US forces is almost the only thing keeping those countries from total annihilation. It would undermine the greatest nation of Earth and terrorism would as a result be proven to work and used more. No one wants that.'

do you actually believe that America is good for Iraq and Afghanistan?! America is seen as the biggest terrorist threat in those countries, and a few others actually

a new law...hmmm sticksandstones came up with good and intelligent ones, i would make it illegal for anyone over the age of 50...ok 55 (just because my grandmas driving isn't too bad) to sit behind the steering wheel

 

[Manchot]

Examples of existing laws to be repealed [for adults] would include seatbelt laws, and motorcycle helmet laws.

At first glance, seatbelt laws may appear to infringe on personal choice, but I claim that there is a good justification for doing so. Suppose that I was to cause a minor accident, in which the other party wasn't wearing a seatbelt. If he or she had been wearing one, they would've walked away, but because they weren't, they were hospitalized with a $50k medical bill. Essentially, the other person took a minor mistake on my part and amplified the cost significantly. Now, should my insurance and I have to pay those medical bills, just because I may have technically caused the accident? That would seem unfair, no?

I would say that an alternative to seat belt laws would be a law stating that if you are in an accident, and you aren't wearing a seat belt, then you automatically waive any claims for liability that may occur as a result.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Give on the spot fines for downright stupidity It'd learn people up pretty quick. Say you ran out into the road to pick up a ball without checking to see whether a car was coming, or you got drunk and tried to climb over a fence to get home quicker; the on the spot stupidity warden could give you a ticket, and 3 points on your common sense license. When you had accumulated enough points you could have your license revoked and probationary measures imposed, such as not being allowed out after 10 at night, or to consume alcohol etc I think it might work:tongue:

Unfortunately I think I'd probably be locked up for life by now for being a serial idiot

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Personally, I think we can make do with under a thousand.

My stance is that we shouldn't build any new ones until we have used up the ones we have now.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Oh an euthanizing chavs couldn't hurt, that'll give them an incentive to something other than hang around shopping precincts harassing people.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I live in the land of the free. Yet we have enough laws to incarcerate all the people of the world 25 times over. I suggest one new law: For every new law passed, two old laws must be repealed. In order to pass my law, two would have to be repealed. I suggest the outmoded laws against murder and theft which have proven so inconvenient to free trade.

 

[russ_watters]

My stance is that we shouldn't build any new ones until we have used up the ones we have now.

I don't want to get into it, but with changing threats, requirements, technology, and degredation, it is reasonable to decommission old ones and build new ones. It isn't like we keep planes in service until they crash or are shot down or ships in service until they sink.

 

[ray b]

end the drug laws sex laws and gamboling laws
all the censorship laws and other BS bits of the church supported sin ideals
that the GOP lumps under inforced family values that is the real nanny state in action and is both wrong and un-necessary in a free society
and is about the same program the tali-ban tryed to use in afgan

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

end the drug laws sex laws and gamboling laws
all the censorship laws and other BS bits of the church supported sin ideals
that the GOP lumps under inforced family values that is the real nanny state in action and is both wrong and un-necessary in a free society
and is about the same program the tali-ban tryed to use in afgan

gamboling? There are laws against skipping about and dancing? , those fundamentalists are against everything

hehe, presume you meant gambling. And I kind of agree, but there should be some real regulation on gambling, people aren't exactly responsible generally. Censorship, well for the kids, adults can take care of themselves.

I'm taking a hard line against chavs still though, those kids should be learning and making the most of their lives

 

[BobG]

end the drug laws sex laws and gamboling laws
all the censorship laws and other BS bits of the church supported sin ideals
that the GOP lumps under inforced family values that is the real nanny state in action and is both wrong and un-necessary in a free society
and is about the same program the tali-ban tryed to use in afgan

I wouldn't agree with ending drug laws. Some drugs, such as heroin and meth, need to be illegal. They have no redeeming qualities - only dangers. (Of course, the same could probably be said for cigarettes.)

While I don't really see much value in laws banning prostitution, I think there is a lot of value to keeping it off the streets - in fact, backing off of a total prohibition might do a better job of that.

Censorship would probably take care of itself. If too much offensive material wound up being broadcast, maybe parents would make their kids do something a little healthier than watch TV (like play Grand Theft Auto on their Play Stations?)

 

[BobG]

I don't want to get into it, but with changing threats, requirements, technology, and degredation, it is reasonable to decommission old ones and build new ones. It isn't like we keep planes in service until they crash or are shot down or ships in service until they sink.

Almost. The last B-52 was built in 1962 and the Air Force still has nearly a 100 of those still flying.

 

[denverdoc]

I wouldn't agree with ending drug laws. Some drugs, such as heroin and meth, need to be illegal. They have no redeeming qualities - only dangers. (Of course, the same could probably be said for cigarettes.)

While I don't really see much value in laws banning prostitution, I think there is a lot of value to keeping it off the streets - in fact, backing off of a total prohibition might do a better job of that.

Censorship would probably take care of itself. If too much offensive material wound up being broadcast, maybe parents would make their kids do something a little healthier than watch TV (like play Grand Theft Auto on their Play Stations?)

Heroin is a relatively safe drug(medically), and overdoses usually occurring from having to buy drugs of unknown potency. Speed on the other hand, is arguably the most dangerous drug on the planet, third only to alcohol and tobacco in terms of lives cost and misery inflicted. Now if alcohol and tobacco are legal, why shouldn't speed? This is one where I might be inclined to keep illegal, bacause of its inherent dangers. But if insodoing, you maintain a profit margin of anywhere from several hundred to thousands fold, it will always be available. What few seem to mention in these public policy debates is that addiction accurs at a relatively constant rate in spite of a drugs legal status.

Prostitution--agreed, especially having lived in Nevada where it is still legal. No major fallout there, and as one mom was quoted in a local newspaper, "least this ways I know where Jimmy is Friday nites." Feminists would take big issue, and they have valid points, but IMO these may be more pertinent to runaway streetwalkers, children ,and the like then a bona fide professional.

The laws that I would like to be stricken are tax loopholes, and the ability to hide between a corporate facade.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

It was a joke Russ, nothing more.

 

[russ_watters]

Far enough, but you never know in the politics forum...

 

[BobG]

At first glance, seatbelt laws may appear to infringe on personal choice, but I claim that there is a good justification for doing so. Suppose that I was to cause a minor accident, in which the other party wasn't wearing a seatbelt. If he or she had been wearing one, they would've walked away, but because they weren't, they were hospitalized with a $50k medical bill. Essentially, the other person took a minor mistake on my part and amplified the cost significantly. Now, should my insurance and I have to pay those medical bills, just because I may have technically caused the accident? That would seem unfair, no?

I would say that an alternative to seat belt laws would be a law stating that if you are in an accident, and you aren't wearing a seat belt, then you automatically waive any claims for liability that may occur as a result.

I could live with that. It would lower insurance rates for the smarter drivers.

I'd make one other change that would probably raise insurance rates, though. If the insurance company uses blue book value for a car in excellent condition to decide what rates you should pay, they should pay blue book value for a car in excellent condition if the car's totaled. Having an assessor downgrade the value of the car because of hail damage and the amount that the insurance company will pay towards replacement after the fact is larceny. At least it would have been if it hadn't been totaled two weeks after my son bought the car - he only made one insurance payment. Both insurance rates and claims should be based on book value or actual purchase price, whichever is lower. Main thing is that the claim should be based on the same value as the rates.

I'd also raise the drinking age to 25. That's generally the age that the risk of car accidents goes down (judged by insurance rates, anyway). I'd also ban cell phone usage while driving.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I see nothing to differentiate laws like this from laws potentially regulating our dietary choices [as was just done in New York re trans-fats, and which I predicted [fat laws] many years ago based on this logic]...

I'm pretty sure this never happened. New York as far as I know has never regulated anyone's dietary choices regarding trans fats.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

I'm pretty sure this never happened. New York as far as I know has never regulated anyone's dietary choices regarding trans fats.

Indeed no government at least democratic ones can say that you must do x in the case of health. They can only recommend you do x, because of y. This is fundamental to democracy, your choice is inviolate in matters of your own well being, but don't believe you won't be badgered if your choice is stupid

 

[denverdoc]

The heck you say; first and most obvious is the prohibition against various psychoactive substances. Now I know your love for those thorny logic questions (still wondering about the glass, ice and dead guys); let's say that the war against Schedule I/II drugs was dropped--this would include more than I could name, but basically would include most opiates, stimulants, hallucinogens, tranquilizers, and the odd duck, MMDA (XTC). The fear is that if made legal no one would want to work or buy anything except food, and good a/v software. Sure a few psychopathically inclined paranoids would bo ballistic.

By keeping it illegal, we have arguably more crime and so far as it can be monitored & taxed, less productivity/GNP. I'm betting that even if fewer deaths could be predicted in the first case scenario, we would still have prohibition.

So what keeps us from doing so? Sure there's a small economy based on anti-drug laws. But just as surely the revenues reaped from putting this into the hands of revenuers would dwarf those potential losses.

It would be a windfall. Would health of the average american fall as a result?
It's a tough call. The caloric expenditure during most joystick based Video games is barely above basal metabolic rate(BMR), TV'ers likely even less than BMR as they usually end up more or less horizontal where the heart no longer labors against a heads worth of head. Re the voluntary muscles, instead of 50and above finger movements a minute, the average falls to maybe 6-10 an hour, and brain activity falls to that of the average bear--during hibernation. Bear in mind the gelatinous goo chews up a whopping number of calories, so a decrease there is bad news (unless of course you're bald when the Aristotelian view of the brain as AC device is ever so true) so when it comes to obesity and the associated epidemic of health related causes of morbidity and mortality, maybe we need to rethink things. Go to work stare at a CRT, come home stare at a CRT. MicWave your dinner, root your kid on in whatever epic of video game vs playing catch. Pop your ambien then catch the evening news re the war on drugs...It all makes sense to me.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm pretty sure this never happened. New York as far as I know has never regulated anyone's dietary choices regarding trans fats.

New York City passes trans fat ban
Restaurants must eliminate artery-clogging ingredient by July 2008
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16051436/

On a related note, some companies are now refusing to hire smokers. How is this any different than refusing to hire fat people, or people who eat chocolate, ride motorcycles, skydive, watch too much TV, or who don't exercise enough?