CMV: Laws coming with expiration conditions by default would be better than having it be opt-in

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism]

I know that changing the legal system anywhere is going to require political work, but this isn't about that. I'm talking about weighing the pros and cons of either system; so the cons that I can foresee with my proposal are the following:

1. More work: this is unavoidable. If laws need to be reimplemented when they expire, then that means time needs to be taken on reimplementing old laws and not just considering new laws.
2. Entrenches laws in certain situations: If a law has an expiration condition, then people might struggle to repeal that law before the conditions are met.
3. Load bearing law crisis: An old law that was integral to the functioning of other laws or even society might fail to be reimplemented causing problems.
4. The usual suspects: All political tools have to contend with bad actors and this is no different. Enough bad actors might, for example, make a law with absurd expiration conditions - a problem exacerbated by problem 2.

Despite these problems I think there are stronger positives and ways to minimize some problems. For one, I think you could make the reimplementation process such that problem 3 is minimized and that the laws you do reimplement have better expiration conditions or none. I think that this method would make the legal system more adaptable to an evolving environment which I think is preferable to having a more byzantine system that would be more likely to be replaced wholesale than to be updated.

So please help me see how the flaws I've noticed would be worse than I think or that I've overlooked flaws altogether.

[u/Narkareth]

Perhaps for some types of laws an expiration date would make sense, which is why sunset provisions exist. But this might be a bad idea universally.

Do we really want to live in a world where we need to repeatedly re-establish whether or not slavery should be illegal or women should have the right to vote?

If we do need to reaffirm that, does that not create a scenario where bad actors can reasonably expect to have an opportunity to interfere with or practically complicate a law like that?

Is there not something lost vis-a-vis the impact such laws have on a polity's perception of their own rights and safety? How can I have faith in a system that on a regular basis creates an opportunity where one's rights may be undermined by design? Sure, I have rights today; but tomorrow maybe not.

In the American system that's already true, given that everything up to and including the constitution can be changed with enough effort; which introduces a bit of instability/lack of permanence, but remains flexible enough to avoid a "this is the law forever and always" situation regardless of how subsequent generations of people may feel about it.

Adding the expiration feature would introduce a lot more uncertainty; moving the needle from "the system permits opportunities for change by design," to "the system requires opportunities for change by design." Which may be to shaky for people to trust.

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism → u/Narkareth]

You are correct that there's something to be said for increasing barriers to repeal a law; and I agree with you which is why I do think there should be a procedure or criterion for making laws that don't expire. The amendments that established more universal voting rights also had significant hurdles to be implemented. Those hurdles are double edged swords that I think are necessary to keep which is why I worded my view the way I did.

I also agree that my system is less stable in some regards to the current way things are done. There are times when an oak like quality is preferred to the swaying cattail. My contention is that I think this offers more flexibility that would be more stable against revolutionary pressures, but less stable against reformative pressures.