As long as the anti-lying law applies to politicians, I’ll support it.
5 Likes
God gave us 10 of them and that’s enough.
4 Likes
Does that include “Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn”?
1 Like
Laws are made for the lawless.
1 Timothy 1:9 “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,”
KJV
5 Likes
That’s what I meant earlier about jerks causing all the inane laws.
It’s like when you see a sign or a warning label warning you not to do something incredibly stupid. Remember: that sign is there for a reason. Someone did it.
3 Likes
4 Likes
This isn’t exactly a law we need as much as Constitutional amendments:
-
Congress shall consider no bill that addresses more than one subject
-
The government shall not lend, grant or borrow any money except as necessary to fulfill its Constitutionally required functions
6 Likes
Agreed. Also, no bill shall be longer than 100 pages in total. Longer than that may mean the bill is attempting to do too much at once.
Any bill must be written in language easily understood by the average high school graduate (or equivalent).
All bills must be examined to make certain no provision contained in the bill contradicts any currently existing law, unless the stated purpose of the new law is to correct the previous law, in which case the bill must include a provision voiding the previous law, striking it from the canon.
No bill may incorporate, directly or by reference, the laws of any other nation. (If they have a law so great, pass it here!)
Just a few thoughts…
3 Likes
Most laws in America are solely for the purpose of generating money and control. They just have the weak minded folks believing their lies that the law is for their safety, it’s not. And some people are just so, disrespectful they need things spelled out for them cause they have a lack of morals.
3 Likes
I think it may well be true the in most countries many laws are presented as serving the public interest while actually intended to generate income and/or control, as you say. I also think that however true this is, it doesn’t negate the need for legitimate law and order.
Any hierarchical organization will tend toward corruption, especially governmental organizations. One way to fight this tendency is to regularly vote out the old and vote in the new in order to help prevent individuals from becoming entrenched in the power structure.
1 Like
I could agree however the recent presidential election proves somethings are broken.
1 Like
A great example of a “Feel Good” law is at the airport.
No guns, knives, sewing needles, fingernail clippers on plains, no food or drink unless you bought it inside the secure area.
When we traveled to Switzerland in 2019, right outside of the boarding gate was a kiosk that sold a multitude of Swiss Army Knives! Guess what, I felt no sense of impending doom.
1 Like
Broken, perhaps, but I believe still repairable. Activism and voting can accomplish great things.
1 Like
I love these ideas! I’m not sure if they would work, realistically. Even the 1st Amendment covers more than one (albeit intrinsically related) subjects. And Congress has experience making everything somehow related. Just look at how they’ve abused the interstate commerce clause to justify some of the crazy laws they’ve passed.
Probably the closest thing we got to this was the line item veto that Congress gave President Clinton, but that was struck down by the courts because it gave the executive too much legislative authority.
That would mean all new laws would have to be written in emojis.
I’ve long wondered how the courts resolve an issue where a defendant is literally “damned if you do, damned if you don’t.” Do we have case law where someone is caught between two contradictory laws, or is that just hypothetical?
1 Like
So your saying that it should be legal for someone to drive drunk and endanger everyone else on the road and only charge them in the event that they do actually maim or kill someone? Some laws on the book are there as a deterent to save innocents from those who have no regard for others. What about the child that loses a parent to a drunk driver, what of the person that is now a parapalegic and requires full time care due to being hit by a drunk driver or even the loved ones left behind by a person that kills himself by piling his car into a tree in a drunken haze that could have possibly been prevented.
That type of thinking has prompted things like defunding the police, allowing anarchists to create autonomous zones without retribution and other such nonsense. These places are now rife with violence that has not been seen in decades and finally their law abiding citizens are demanding that they reverse these poor decisions.
I’m glad I live in the midwest where IMHO we have a modicum of sense. I don’t envy the mother in San Francisco who is taking her young child to the dairy queen for an ice cream cone and has to explain why that man just took a dump on the sidewalk right in front of them. It’s kinda difficult to exercise your right to the pursuit of happiness in that environment.
I’m sorry but I can not live in your world.
Such as murder. Should we arrest firearm owners before a crime is committed, because we all know firearms make people dangerous? No, we should not be arresting people because they “might be” a danger to others or themselves. If the person is driving “recklessly”, that is a danger to others, but the crime is not “drunk driving”, it could be “texting while driving” or “screaming at a misbehaving child while driving”, etc.
No, belief in liberty has not prompted defunding police and “autonomous” zones. Using the sidewalk as a toilet does, at minimum, create a health hazard and does impinge on others’ rights and liberties, as do places where criminals are allowed to prey upon innocent people.
1 Like
I was going to pick apart your answer for debate but we are just too far apart. You strongly disagree with my views and I strongly disagree with yours and I can see that no amount of discussion will change either of our views. I can appreciate your differing views but could never support them. No animus, my suggestion is we agree to disagree.
1 Like
You are more than welcome to explain your rationale for your opinion. Yes, I am not likely to agree, but I am always willing to read a rational response to rebut my posts. I have changed my views on many topics since I was younger. Not only did I believe in the 1938 FFA disbarring felons the RKBA, I even believed in laws making drugs illegal in my youth. Knowledge has made me understand the fallacies I was taught as a child.
3 Likes
When men are honest and moral, no laws are necessary. When men are dishonest and immoral, no laws are effective.
6 Likes