It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Independent Review Board for Laws and Taxes...

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:14 PM
Ok so here is my main question....

Why is there not a review clause written in for laws and taxes?

Is it not sensible to think that within an ever evolving society that taxes and laws would phase out? There needs to be nationaly funded review boards and local community review boards that take a look at how affective laws are, and how much they are worth funding. This review panel would review the law, how much money is spent on it and after a certain amount of time(lets say 10 years for example) submit there finding for the public. They then would then put the law or tax up on the ballot for a revote. This may have been covered already but it is a thought that continues to reoccur in my mind.

This is pretty generalized concept that i'm sure could use some more work.

Lets just add policies in general into the mix.

[edit on 30-5-2010 by onequestion]

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:22 PM
oh great, more bureaucratic red tape.
Just what we need to slow down the
congressional process to the speed
of a snail.

This whole dept could be eliminated
if we just had competent congressman
who actually voted for the majority.

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:24 PM
Interesting concept, yet, our Founders specifically put into place safeguards against "democratic rule." See Socrates as to one of the main reasons. They *feared* democracy. What you suggest is pure and simple, unadulterated, democracy.

Though I admit... there are certainly a few laws I would the opportunity to vote against... and a few I would love to vote for as well

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:26 PM
reply to post by boondock-saint

This would be a fail safe mechinism. I don't think this would slow anything down, this may in fact speed everything up as all the old laws slowing everything down would be reviewed and revote upon review.

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:40 PM

Originally posted by onequestion
This would be a fail safe mechinism. I don't think this would slow anything down, this may in fact speed everything up as all the old laws slowing everything down would be reviewed and revote upon review.

and who is gonna run the country while congress back logs
all 389,143 previous laws it is reviewing and re-voting on??
That alone would take 20+ years not counting the laws
needed for today's problems.

the 389,143 is just a number I threw out
to make a point, but it's a lot of laws

What you propose might sound good
but in practicality it is useless IMO.

posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:59 PM
Congress would not be elected to handle this area...
You are right about the sheer volume that would make this a massive undertaking, but should we continue to fund all of these programs, and war instead? Once we catch up we are caught up, mybe these stimulus packages could be used for this...

Without all the nonsense in the way, everything would be more efficient.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:42 PM
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

Can you provide any information regarding the laws to safeguard against something like this?

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:19 PM
The OMB (executive branch) and CBO (legislative branch) review laws to see what the cost would be. The courts review laws to see if they are constitutional, but they do not touch political questions.

In the UK, the House of Lords does much of what you describe. The House of Lords today is made up of experts like economists and scientists. The House of Lords reviews and amends the House of Commons' legislation so it "technically sound" for lack of a better term.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:48 PM

Can you provide any information regarding the laws to safeguard against something like this?

I am not a legal scholar and my layman's level of studying the founding documents of this country is only several months old.

The closest thing I can quote at this time as to codified laws, with my limited legal knowledge, are the laws that set up our Electoral College, our House of Representatives allocated by population, as opposed to every state having two senators.

The entire Federal level of elected officials is based on representation, not on granting us the ability to effect our laws with a vote from the citizenry as a whole.

However, there are innumerable documents that unambiguously state the Founding Father's abhorrence of Democracy as a governing model. Perhaps the easiest accessible and well known are the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers.

Perhaps the best "concept framing" I can summarize is that the Framers had two goals in mind: A government constrained by the people [voters] and "the running of the people's business" insulated from the people: Passions of the day running through the electorate could not directly "inspire" laws.

The "average man" is many things, but expert in law is not necessarily one of them, and the Framers wished ensure that the citizenry, the "unwashed masses" if you will, could not directly institute laws that would benefit the majority, often at the expense of the minority.

As an example: I live in a fairly small state, but because my state has the same number of Senators [2] as the most populous states, *I* am [somewhat] protected against the majority's wishes of states such as California and New York. My two Senators have an equally weighted vote as their two Senators each.

The population has a higher degree of of a "representational voice" in our House of Representatives where a state's voice is directly proportional to the number of people within that state.

Wrap the entire system together and no majority can steam roll all. All-in-all, far superior to a Democracy where 51% of the country to vote to nationalize the oil industry or confiscate the wealth of the wealthiest 1% of the nation [well, more so than we already attempt]. Or, where 51% of the population could vote allow completely free and open boarders to any and all entrants. Or, 51% could vote to "nuke" Iran, or invade Canada
or Mexico. Or, 51% could vote to make the offense of drunk driving punishable by a life sentence in prison.

Governance is meant to be "slow and deliberative," not ruled by "the passions of the day." It doesn't always work out that way, but it's the best we've got. The "unwashed masses" are not known for "slow and deliberate" deliberation. Just look to any of our elections. We cannot, as a population, even manage to inform ourselves [a generalization] of issues on a local level, that impact us as individuals on a local level. What suggests that the citizens of California and New York would concern themselves about becoming informed of potential consequences to "the fly over states"? I continually use California and New York because, as a block, they represent a very LARGE proportion of the US population and a formidable alliance is easy to imagine.

Sorry, I'm sure my answers are wholly inadequate to your question. Perhaps others, far more knowledgeable will pick up the baton.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 03:52 PM
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

No, i understand what you are saying and thank you for taking the time to respond. I am not proposing we change the current system, more or less add this into it. It would be more of a way to say, ok this was useful and worth our money, and or, this wasn't. I am also thinking that this starts on the local level.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:22 PM
I believe, if I understand you correctly, that congress already does this and has certain wording in various laws they enact to allow a law a 'sunset provision'.

If there is a general concensus that a law is outdated or no longer necessary there are steps to repeal or change existing law. I've noticed, on the local level, that unless a constituency makes a fuss over a certain provision the law will remain as is if it doesn't have a sunset.

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:35 PM
reply to post by links234


Why would all laws not have this? Why do we need people to go through hell in order to change things?

posted on May, 30 2010 @ 11:43 PM
reply to post by onequestion

It depends on what you mean by "laws". If you mean a local law that requires you keep your property in reasonably good repair - order, those laws are viewed as not likely to go out of vogue. If you mean the prohibition against murder or rape, again - not likely to change.

If you mean the law regulating the age a person can obtain a driver's license, they are occasionally reviewed.

If you mean budgeted items, such as NASA funding, those aren't laws, they are budget line items.

If you mean programs that are supported by budgetary line items, those budgetary line items are reviewed every year during the budget process.

So, I'm confused... what, exactly, needs to be reviewed?

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:22 AM
reply to post by Geeky_Bubbe

By law i am generalizing everything.

Business, tax, law, everything.

I think there should be a probationary period where everything is reviewed. I mean, why wouldn't there be? Everything is suppose to benefit what we do as a society, but a lot of regulation hampers business, and well, you get the idea.

posted on May, 31 2010 @ 12:35 AM
reply to post by onequestion

Of course I get your point -- with the clarification. I live with all the "unintended consequences" of Sarbanes-Oxley every day I go to that horrible capitalist thingie I call "the day job."

new topics

top topics


log in