What laws would you like enacted, repealed or changed?
The first things that come to mind:
-Lower the drinking age to 18.
-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).
I like the way you think SticksandStones.
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.
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.
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 cancelled 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.
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!
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:
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.
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.
Then perhaps they should say why?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
'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
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.
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
My stance is that we shouldn't build any new ones until we have used up the ones we have now.
Separate names with a comma.