A modest proposal..

[Fumesucker]

Here is a a quote from Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress"..

I'm wondering how many of you think this might be a decent idea and how many think it might be a terrible idea.

Please keep in mind that I'm neither advocating nor condemning this idea, I just think it's an interesting concept to kick around and it's one that I do not recall ever hearing anywhere else.

I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent— the more impediments to legislation the better. But, instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?

[GoneOffShore]

1. Ah, Heinlein - a recalcitrant old fascist, who occasionally

came up with some good ideas.

[Fumesucker]

4. Fascism invariably takes a big government..

Heinlein feared government, he was hardly a fascist.

One of America's biggest problems today is that Americans by and large do not fear their government.

As you have seen over the last eight years or more, when you create a large, powerful government it will invariably fall into the wrong hands.

Where are all the conservatives who, ten years ago, were saying "I love my county but I fear my government"?

They are out marching in jackboots and brown shirts with signs that say "America, love it or leave it".

And all the liberals who today are saying they fear their government will be loving government again once their side gets into power once more (assuming they do).

[rock]

2. Well I certainly agree

That it is preposterous that our laws can be passed with a 50% + 1 votes. That is with just about half of the law-makers thinking it's a bad idea!

[Cresent City Kid]

3. Double edged sword

I have kicked around the idea of starting our government from scratch, but I fear we'll lose more than we'll gain. If Exxon is making our energy policy, who's going to write the new constitution?

The first thing I would change is the Electoral College. I live in Texas, so my vote for President will be on the losing side of a state election, even if there is 100% turnout. What exactly is keeping the Electoral College going, who is for it? It is as antiquated as the requirement to be a white male landowner to vote.

I don't know how I feel about your question. It may make it too hard to pass laws that are good for us, given that the legislators would still be influenced by lobbyists.

Do you think we'll ever have to vote by fingerprint? If so, is this a good thing? We would have to be watched to make sure we're not using severed fingers or images. Regardless of how perfectly we steamline voting, there is still the issue of what happens to the results.

[ThomWV]

5. All Federal laws should be required to have an expiration date, none greater than 50 years.

One working lifetime. If the law was good enough to keep it shouldn't require much to re-enact it.

[Publius2008]

6. This sounds like a recipe for even more gridlock

We've seen in the Senate all the problems that occur when you need supermajorities to pass anything. Under the system described above, a bill would only pass if it is a no-brainer. The legislation that requires hard choices -- e.g., tackling global warming, health care, etc. -- wouldn't go anywhere until the problems became impossible to ignore.