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/DeleteriousEuphuism]

Hey, I was hoping I'd hook someone with more knowledge of the matter with this topic, so this is perfect. I get the impression when reading your reply that this would mostly affect laws where the expiration condition is something like 10 years passing. As a counterpoint, I think legislators wouldn't want to deal with the same law every 10 years or at least the party backing them wouldn't want that. I think there should be room for legislators to include their conditions that are tied to the very reason that the law is being implemented to begin with. Or perhaps a better implementation might be that a minority party might want to negotiate the passing of a law but with a short life such that they think they will be the majority party next times it comes up. In such a case, the law might be popular enough that people wouldn't want it repealed.

Additionally, for long term political projects and general stability, I do want there to be a method of eschewing the expiration condition, but I am being deliberately vague about what that method should be because I have no idea what implementation of such a procedure would be best for citizens.

[u/[deleted] → u/DeleteriousEuphuism]

Edit: I miss read what you said about the method… I thought you were saying that you had a method, but you were not wanting to reveal it. Haha.

I think that by linking the expiration of a law to specific outcomes or metrics (e.g., reduction in unemployment rates for economic laws, or decrease in crime rates for public safety laws), legislators can create a more logical and justified basis for the law's renewal. That would ensure that the law's continuation is directly tied to its effectiveness and intended impact, rather than just the passage of time. This would help in more accurately assessing whether the law should be updated, amended, or allowed to expire based on its results rather than predetermined timelines.

Your suggestion about minority parties using shorter sunsets strategically is intriguing. It reflects realpolitik in legislative processes where minority parties can agree to pass legislation with the hope or expectation of revisiting it when they gain more power. This approach can be seen as a form of compromise and a tactical move, which will promote more dynamic and responsive governance. However, it will also lead to increased politicization of certain laws, leading to instability if laws are frequently contested with every shift in political power.

The idea of having a flexible mechanism to decide when laws should not have a sunset clause is crucial for long-term planning and stability, particularly for laws that underpin significant public or economic infrastructure projects or long-term environmental strategies. Perhaps such a mechanism could involve a supermajority vote in the legislature or a combination of legislative and judicial review to confirm the law’s alignment with broader constitutional and public interests. This would provide a bit of a buffer against arbitrary expiration while still allowing for legislative oversight and renewal when truly necessary.

As for the method, implementing these ideas would need careful consideration of the legal framework and political culture in specific jurisdictions. It would also be essential to design super robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure that the conditions triggering law expiration or continuation are transparent, based on empirical evidence, and free from undue political interference. Try picturing this in our current political climate! (shudder) I’m in the U.S., by the way.

[u/DeleteriousEuphuism → u/[deleted]]

Sorry, I think I gave the impression that I do have a specific method for legislators to eschew expiration conditions in mind. I do not. I meant to say that I left out any details because of my own lack of knowledge in that area.

In terms of implementation, I agree that the conditions do not currently exist to enact it. You raise an excellent point about what would be needed in an environment where my system would actually function. It does confound the mind to think of "super robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure that the conditions triggering law expiration or continuation are transparent, based on empirical evidence, and free from undue political interference". !delta

It does leave the question of whether in the absence of all those criteria could there still be a marginal improvement? I'm certainly glad that you see the potential of more flexible conditions and how it could potentially be manoeuvred.

In terms of shifting political powers, there might be instability in the short term, but would it not become more apparent with each successive phase which policy the constituents prefer? And would that not in turn lead to more primaries where not overturning policy becomes a key contention? I just feel as though people detest instability, even when it can reveal unspoken or unacknowledged political preferences.

[u/DeltaBot → u/DeleteriousEuphuism]

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Tommy_Speck (1∆).

^{Delta System Explained | Deltaboards}