Const Amendment Idea: To repeal any law, only 1 branch (leg, ex, jd) must withdraw consent

[BarryDonegan]

Here's the idea: any single branch of government can simply vote or exercise its prerogative to end a previously enacted piece of legislation by withdrawing their consent. The Supreme Court can obviously already do this via challenging constutionality, but formally allowing all branches to remove legislation after the fact at any time makes it a lot easier to keep the code clean.

This would be a pretty radical change, though. What do you guys think?

[nate895]

Absolute veto for the President, even retroactively? No way.

[BarryDonegan]

It would be an absolute veto for every branch. Laws would have to be INSANELY popular to ever get put to code. That would significantly slow down the special interests' capability to effectively write law.

[nate895]

It would be an absolute veto for every branch. Laws would have to be INSANELY popular to ever get put to code. That would significantly slow down the special interests' capability to effectively write law.

We already have the ability to veto from two branches retroactively. It requires two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to repeal any law on the books, if there is a presidential veto, otherwise it's just a simple majority plus the President. I think that's reasonable.

[BarryDonegan]

We already have the ability to veto from two branches retroactively. It requires two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress to repeal any law on the books, if there is a presidential veto, otherwise it's just a simple majority plus the President. I think that's reasonable.

I'm saying that makes it too easy for laws to remain on the books. The system we have now grows law over time. We need one that keeps a consistent amount of law because there are checks and balances against growth of code.

[nate895]

I'm saying that makes it too easy for laws to remain on the books. The system we have now grows law over time. We need one that keeps a consistent amount of law because there are checks and balances against growth of code.

It should be hard to change the law whatsoever. I'd support a constitutional amendment to require two-third majorities of both houses to pass new laws, but to say that on the whim of a single man (the President) laws should be repealed is ridiculous.

[BarryDonegan]

It should be hard to change the law whatsoever. I'd support a constitutional amendment to require two-third majorities of both houses to pass new laws, but to say that on the whim of a single man (the President) laws should be repealed is ridiculous.

But could it be symbolic of the fact that every man has the right to withdraw consent from unjust law?

It's important to note that this could only be used to delete government, and deleting anything besides the few functions proscribed for in the constitution that can't be wouldn't really have that negative of an impact, in fact, would probably be in most cases positive. I think this holds true no matter the circumstance.

Bear in mind the bodies have remedies too, to impeach the President, for example if he literally is the one man standing for something no one can tolerate.

[nate895]

But could it be symbolic of the fact that every man has the right to withdraw consent from unjust law?

Or it could be giving the authority to a tyrant to repeal just laws.

[BarryDonegan]

Give an example of a just Federal law that a tyrant could repeal in injury to the Republic. I feel like any law not found in the Constitution is a net negative. haha

[nate895]

Give an example of a just Federal law that a tyrant could repeal in injury to the Republic. I feel like any law not found in the Constitution is a net negative. haha

What about Posse Commitatus?

[Zatch]

Give an example of a just Federal law that a tyrant could repeal in injury to the Republic. I feel like any law not found in the Constitution is a net negative. haha

Laws banning private ownership of nuclear weapons?

[nate895]

Laws banning private ownership of nuclear weapons?

We shouldn't have those laws!!! That's aggression!!!

/sarcasm