The US Code has 51 Titles and tens of thousands of pages of laws, but it seems there's always a need for yet another one. How often have you seen something outrageous or objectionable or just downright stupid, shaken your head, and muttered "there oughta be a law" (against that outrageous, objectionable, or stupid thing)?
I mutter that all the time as I observe our current political cesspool, in which it is more important to score political points than to actually solve problems ... today's Exhibit A would be the hypocritical blowhard Republicans who refuse to take legislative action to solve the immigration crisis, finding it more politically useful to leave a steaming mess on President Biden's desk before the election than to fix the issue through thoughtful and comprehensive legislation*. It's worth noting that the bill drafted by a bipartisan working group gave Republicans virtually everything they asked for and included major policy concessions from Democrats ... and the GOP-led House refuses even to put it up for a vote. The political hypocrisy is breathtaking.
Yes, there oughta be a [rational, Constitutional, affordable, humane, and effective] law, and Congress oughta write it, but it won't ... or, at least, the GOP part of it won't**. And while I'm generally on the side of Congress doing its job and creating legislation that actually solves problems (as opposed to demanding that the President take unilateral action via executive order that they can criticize without taking any responsibility), I don't think there's a case to be made for writing a law just because we seem to need one. Sometimes there are already applicable laws that just need to be resourced and enforced to address the problem. And even when there oughta be a new law, it oughta make sense and be workable. And that's why - if I were a member of Congress*** - I'd advocate the following:
A Law to Ensure
the Constitutionality, Affordability, Adequacy, and Humanity
of Proposed Legislation
Section 1. SHORT TITLE: This act may be cited as the "There Oughta Be a Law Act."
Section 2. Any member of Congress who, during a crisis, advocates a course of action or, conversely, opposes a course of action being followed by the current administration, will concurrently introduce proposed legislation which:
1. Explains exactly what specific action is advocated (i.e., "bomb Teheran in response to Iranian surrogates attacking US forces in the Middle East," "build an impenetrable wall along the southern border," "reduce illegal immigration to zero," "bomb drug labs in Mexico," etc);2. Explains how the proposed legislation differs from and is better than actions already being taken by the current administration;3. Includes the following mandatory elements:
(a) a legal review that certifies the proposed law is constitutional and clearly explains how it replaces, relates to, enhances, or conflicts with existing laws;(b) a risk assessment outlining the foreseeable economic and military consequences of implementing the proposed law;(c) an estimated cost of the proposed law over ten years, calculated by the Congressional Budget Office; and,(d) identification of a source of funding for the implementation and execution of the proposed law.
Section 3: Advocation of any course of action deemed either unconstitutional or illegal according to existing laws will be stricken from the Congressional Record and considered to be grounds for impeachment.
Seems reasonable to me ... whattaya think?
Have a good, legally and constitutionally sound day. More thoughts coming.
Bilbo
* As commentator SE Cupp has noted, “A broken immigration system has become too politically profitable for both parties to solve. If you solve it, you can’t run on it, fundraise off of it, fearmonger on it…”
** Yes, I know the Democrats share blame for allowing the problem to fester for decades, but IMHO, the blatant hypocrisy and shameless political chicanery of the Republicans is far worse because it so obviously uses the crisis for its own purposes.
** Or, Gawd forbid, President.
Bilbo for President!
ReplyDelete