Sheriffs Vow to Appeal Ruling Upholding Colorado Gun-Control Laws

[Hotdoger]

Sheriffs Vow to Appeal Ruling Upholding Colorado Gun-Control Laws | The Colorado Observer

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

While I wish only defeat for gun control folks and all of their initiatives, I do agree with this:

“A court does not act as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom or workability of legislation,” said Krieger. “Instead, it determines only whether legislation is constitutionally permissible. A law may be constitutional, but nevertheless foolish, ineffective, or cumbersome to enforce.”

 

[CathyInBlue]

There should be a House of Repeal in every state and federal legislature. If a law passed by the other house(s) of the legislature are ineffective or harsh, the House of Repeal should be empowered to undertake studies of the law's implementation/costs/practicalities and, of course, Constitutionality. If the House of Repeal (which would not be empowered to pass any new legislation of its own) judges a law to be bad, it can repeal it on its own, without the judiciary, executive, or other house(s) of the legislature. If a law repealed by the House of Repeal is actually popular, then a supermajority of the governmental units under the government (counties in the case of states, states/provinces in the case of federal) can override the repeal and reinstate the law if they so choose, and at that point, that statute would be put forever outside of further purview of the House of Repeal.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

There should be a House of Repeal in every state and federal legislature. If a law passed by the other house(s) of the legislature are ineffective or harsh, the House of Repeal should be empowered to undertake studies of the law's implementation/costs/practicalities and, of course, Constitutionality. If the House of Repeal (which would not be empowered to pass any new legislation of its own) judges a law to be bad, it can repeal it on its own, without the judiciary, executive, or other house(s) of the legislature. If a law repealed by the House of Repeal is actually popular, then a supermajority of the governmental units under the government (counties in the case of states, states/provinces in the case of federal) can override the repeal and reinstate the law if they so choose, and at that point, that statute would be put forever outside of further purview of the House of Repeal.

While this idea does sound appealing, on a certain level, can you imagine all the new expansion in government this will create? We'd have all sorts of staffers, administrators, assistants, janitors, and deputy-whatevers. And all of those new government employees would want fancy medical benefits and retirement plans...not to mention salaries. Before you'd know it, the corruption that exists would infect the new HoR. You'd have committees in the regular house/senate making deals with the HoR; you'd have lobbyists buying golfing trips so they could convince a HoR member to repeal parts of an unfavorable law; and on and on...

 

[cobber]

So in Indiana a federal judge strikes down a law passed by the legislature, and INGOers applaud.

In Colorado a federal judge upholds a law passed by the legislature, and INGOers grumble.


Changing State laws by federal judge doesn't always go the way we want it to...

 

[CathyInBlue]

While this idea does sound appealing, on a certain level, can you imagine all the new expansion in government this will create? We'd have all sorts of staffers, administrators, assistants, janitors, and deputy-whatevers. And all of those new government employees would want fancy medical benefits and retirement plans...not to mention salaries. Before you'd know it, the corruption that exists would infect the new HoR. You'd have committees in the regular house/senate making deals with the HoR; you'd have lobbyists buying golfing trips so they could convince a HoR member to repeal parts of an unfavorable law; and on and on...

The House of Repeal would not be allowed to be in session within 45 days of a session of the regular legislature. That should somewhat put a crimp in the wheeling and dealing.

There just needs to be a motivational imperative to reduce the number and scope of laws at least as strong as the one to institute or expand new ones. As to the expansion of government to support a House of Repeal, it would be more than paid for by the reduction in government elsewhere that would be the necessary result of the operations of same. In fact, I could see using centralized government's instinct to expand against itself with the House of Repeal. Tie the salaries and benefits of House of Repeal staffers and elected officials to how much they shrink the rest of the government. If in a year, the House of Repeal axes, say, the Dept. of Education at the federal level. That's an annual budget of roughly $70 billion. Take 1% of that, $700 million, and that's the amount that the House of Repeal's budget gets increased for the next year. That lasts for four years before it rolls off the House of Repeal's budget allotment.

I feel a large measure of the corruption in D.C. came about because the Senate is no longer a representative of the states, but rather just a mini-House of Representatives. The House of Repeal would be elected as was the Senate, by the nomination of the chief executives and the advice and consent of the legislatures of the governments under the government of which the House of Repeal was a part.

FoxNews.com has a story up about how election year politics has ground the function of the Senate to a halt. All those Democrats who are up for reelection by the people are terrified of making any votes that would jeopardize their returning to their seats of power. Returning the Senate to the control of their individual states would cure that.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Returning the Senate to the control of their individual states would cure that.

I've got about 17 other amendments I'd like to repeal while we're at it...a lot of ills would be cured.

 

[CathyInBlue]

With regard to the amendment process for the federal Constitution, The House of Repeal could only draft bills to repeal them, in whole of part.

 

[Redhorse]

While I wish only defeat for gun control folks and all of their initiatives, I do agree with this:

“A court does not act as a super-legislature to determine the wisdom or workability of legislation,” said Krieger. “Instead, it determines only whether legislation is constitutionally permissible. A law may be constitutional, but nevertheless foolish, ineffective, or cumbersome to enforce.”

Sorry, I couldn't get the quote you quoted in there (I'm doing something wrong) but that is a good point.