What laws would you like enacted, repealed or changed?
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]whats wrong with seatbelt and helmet laws?
Why is this so unpopular, if I may ask?Repeal the No Child Left Behind Act
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.
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.Why is this so unpopular, if I may ask?
Then perhaps they should say why?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.
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.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.
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.It will also undermine the country as a whole not to have a strong leader.
Thanks.I like the way you think SticksandStones.
Stalin and Mao were strong leaders - and look what happened.It will also undermine the country as a whole not to have a strong leader.
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.Stalin and Mao were strong leaders - and look what happened.
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.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.
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.I think that instead of taxing gasoline, more time and money should be spent on developing alternative fuel.
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?Examples of existing laws to be repealed [for adults] would include seatbelt laws, and motorcycle helmet laws.
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.My stance is that we shouldn't build any new ones until we have used up the ones we have now.
gamboling? There are laws against skipping about and dancing?:surprised, those fundamentalists are against everythingend 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