An interesting legal concept: Sunset clauses

[Kytro]

I am wondering if anyone else supports this concept.

Law with mandatory sunset clauses.

Basically the idea of this is too allow the law to adapt to changing circumstances without cluttering up the legal situation.

Here are the benefits, in my opinion:

* Old laws that fall into disuse could easily be eliminated
* Current law could be updated to take account of changing circumstances on a regular basis
* Laws would require justification in order continue to exist, so if current circumstances didn't support the need for the law, it can easily be discarded.


I would envision that clauses could be set of a variety of time periods, depending on the type of law - though nothing longer than 10 years.

Comments?

[Ardentfrost]

Jefferson supported this idea. He said a mandatory 18 years on all laws before sunset.

I like the idea. 18 may or may not be the perfect length of time, but sunset would make sure that all laws are meaningful and relevant.

[Kytro]

I would argue for longer periods on laws such as murder etc and shorter for specific-circumstance laws.

I would also be wary of renewal of laws in groups.

[Phantom]

The idea makes sense to me, but also could be extraordinarily costly in two ways:

1) Congress will have to spend much time going over things that have been debated. Things that are generally in agreement won't take much time, but all the silly laws here in the US re abortion will grind Congress to a halt every few years when they are up for debate.


2) (the big one) uncertainty. Uncertainty in the law is a disaster, just ask anyone presently working in the estate planning business in the US. Right now we have enormous uncertainty as to the tax scheme for estates after laws are set to expire in 2011. Estate planners are running in circles because they are unable to plan for whatever changes, if any, will occur when the provisions presently in effect expire by operation of law.

[Diamond Cross]

I'm all for them. However, how would they prevent laws that are popular or are there just to be there without intent to enforce them?

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Phantom

1) Congress will have to spend much time going over things that have been debated. Things that are generally in agreement won't take much time, but all the silly laws here in the US re abortion will grind Congress to a halt every few years when they are up for debate.

Contentious issues need to be debated and sorted out.

Originally Posted by Phantom

2) (the big one) uncertainty. Uncertainty in the law is a disaster, just ask anyone presently working in the estate planning business in the US. Right now we have enormous uncertainty as to the tax scheme for estates after laws are set to expire in 2011. Estate planners are running in circles because they are unable to plan for whatever changes, if any, will occur when the provisions presently in effect expire by operation of law.

Well everything has some downsides. Hopefully most good law will easily be passed and hence become more certain.

[Kytro]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

I'm all for them. However, how would they prevent laws that are popular or are there just to be there without intent to enforce them?

I don't think it can be entirely prevented, but often these laws turn out to be useless and wouldn't be renewed.