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.

Title: Simplicity

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”
Albert Einstein

“There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness, and truth.”
Leo Tolstoy

“It is not a daily increase, but a daily decrease. Hack away at the inessentials.”
Bruce Lee

“One should use common words to say uncommon things”
Arthur Schopenhauer

“Nature is pleased with simplicity. And nature is no dummy”
Isaac Newton

“Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication”
Leonardo da Vinci

“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, ruling, 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 Any group of words published or unpublished that any elected or unelected person issues is to be considered a document.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 decision.
    e. 10,000 word limit. No document may be more than 10,000 words 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 its own.'
    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 issuance.
    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 intended purpose.
    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, no elected 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 sheriff.

    a. Define
    c. Limit
    d. Allow
    i. Budget
    j. Penalty

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 email contact.
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.)