Three laws that would help everyone:
Basically, these motivate our lawmakers to do a good job. FOR US - you
know - the ones they work for - taxpayers, citizens. These will need to
be full amendments - so they (lawmakers) can't choose to change them
without our approval.
“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it
“There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness, and
“It is not a daily increase, but a daily decrease. Hack away at the
“One should use common words to say uncommon things”
“Nature is pleased with simplicity. And nature is no dummy”
“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”
“Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler” -
attributed to Albert Einstein
― http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/05/13/einstein-simple/ ------ to
show that even simple may not be simple.
1 Preface - the intent of this law is to simplify lawmaking. The desire
is to remove ambiguity, reduce complexity, reduce confusion, close gaps
and 'loopholes' in legal and legislative proceedings. Making laws is not
rocket science. And even rocket science would NEVER consider sane the
rules as our current lawmakers write.
a. For the purposes of this law - any law, statute,
decision, advice, proposal, speech during an official session - any
conveyance of words - is called a document. Any group of words
published or unpublished that any elected or unelected person issues is
to be considered a document. This would include any communication made
by any public individual or group, or any document submitted for
consideration to support or deny support to a considered document.
b. Any ambiguous term shall be defined in the first
section of the
document. Any interpretation of the following sections shall be
clarified by these definitions, or definitions (only) contained in
other previous (in time) documents. This is the only allowance of one
document referring to another document. Any definition in the specified
in the current document overrides that of another document.
c. A new document may apply to a previous (in time)
document - but only if it is a redefinition of terms in the previous.
That is - the preface of the new document states the intent of the new
document is to redefine the terms in the previous (in time) document.
If the new definitions could be interpreted as modifying the intent of
the preface of the previous (in time) document, it is invalid and shall
have no force. No hypothetical, anticipated, speculated, proposed,
unpassed or otherwise future document may be referenced.
d. Any document must have a preface that states the
intent of the
following text of the document. If a decision is made that the document
has an internal conflict, this preface is to be the deciding factor for
e. 10,000 word limit. No document may be more than
long. An amendment may change the document, but the total may still not
exceed 10,000 words. If a topic is considered too complex to cover in
10,000 words, it must be broken into separate topics, each to 'stand on
f. No document may be dependent on another law. A
document may not
be chained or attached to another document. This also means documents
amy not be approved 'en mass' or 'subject to' approval on any other
document. Each must stand on its own. Each must be approved as an
individual document without any subordinate document dependency. This
does not preclude a subordinate agency from having enabling documents
that put into force documents enacted by superior agencies. Those
documents must also follows the rules of this document.
g. Only one topic may be addressed in a document.
That topic must be referenced in the preface.
h. Any new (in time) document has precedence over
any previous (in
time) document. If a new document contradicts a previous document, the
old is considered 'struck down.' A conclusion of this is that, in order
to preserve a previous document, a new document, or several, may need
to be issued to cover the topic or topics of the old document. This
will have the effect of translating the old documents into the new
format, and cause heavy consideration of a new document before its
i. Any document that may require funding, or that
may change any
funding source or, or that may change anything dependent on funding,
must provide a non-hypothetical means of funding. No document may be
issued that may provide funding beyond 5 percent of the documents
j. No more than 10 sections may be in any law.
Title: Budget Responsibility
2 Preface - the intent of this law is to make our lawmakers do their
job that we pay them to do. If they miss a deadline, there should be a
penalty. Analogy: if I don't do my work, my boss yells at me. If I fail
miserably - I get fired. The same should be true for lawmakers.
d. If the deadline for enacting a budget has passed,
official in that entity, or any elected official in a subordinate
capacity to that group of officials, shall receive any manner of
compensation. This also includes any later recompense for any
expense or obligation incurred during this period.
e. Any direct staff of any of the officials in the
previous section also will not receive any manner of compensation or
recompense for any expense or obligation incurred during this period.
f. For each five working days passed without a
finally passed budget, the senior (by longetivity in office) member
of each house and his staff is to be removed from office and forever
barred from any election, appointive, consultive position related by
any relationship to the group he is removed from. This continues until
half of one of either house is removed, at which time general elections
are to be held within 30 days to replace missing legislators.
Title: Personal Privacy
3. Preface - People, courts, lawmakers, law enforcement - all have their
own definition of what personal privacy is. Result: we are losing it,
piece-by-piece. This defines personal privacy and attempts make the
line to not cross clear and unambiguous. With penalties. I break a
rule, I get slapped. Same should be true for Congress or the local
I invite comment on these proposals. The more appropriate I will post
below these lines. Both sides. Or interesting wrinkles on these ideas,
or those similar. These are like 'take back our government' amendments
that should remind people why the United States WAS a unique country
when it began, and why it is no longer. (If you doubt me, research the
European discussions about liberty in the United States, and why many
there WOULD NOT move here now.)
If interested and motivated, somewhere buried in this website is my
Otherwise, ripoff a copy and post it somewhere else (I would hope with
a reference back here, but I'm realistic: ethics aren't something
stressed in home or school too often these days.)