"An Affront To Self-Government"
That's what Mark Steyn calls a law with as many pages as Obamacare (2,700):
"What happened to the Eighth Amendment?" sighed Justice Scalia the other day. That's the bit about cruel and unusual punishment. "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks?"He was making a narrow argument about "severability"--about whether the court could junk the "individual mandate" but pick and choose what bits of Obamacare to keep. Yet he was unintentionally making a far more basic point: A 2,700-page law is not a "law" by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there's no equality: Instead, there's a hierarchy of privilege microregulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown and unnumbered bureaucracy. It's not just that the legislators who legislate it don't know what's in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can ever hope to understand it, but that even the nation's most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension.
...If the Supreme Court really wished to perform a service, it would declare that henceforth no law can be longer than, say, 27 pages . . .
> ...If the Supreme Court really wished to perform a service, it would declare that henceforth no law can be longer than, say, 27 pages . . .
It is already the case that laws are too vague, specifying that "the bureau of XYZ shall have the power to make all necessary legislation to carry out QRS..."
...and the result is that we have the EPA issuing regulations declaring - with force of law - any restrictions on the rights of Americans that a bunch of unelected bureaucrats think is a good idea.
If laws were 27 pages (or 27,000 words - let's not inadvertantly create a market for 0.001 point microptype fonts!), we'd see even more power delegated to the perpetual ruling block.
TJIC at April 2, 2012 6:11 AM
27 pages? Can't be done. Where would the payrise rider go?
Ltw at April 2, 2012 6:15 AM
The federal government shouldn't be into healthcare, it is a state matter.
It isn't that the solons at the state level are more intelligent. There is desireable competition between the states which keeps them more focused on reality.
Again, competition for consumer satisfaction is the key pressure for good law and good results.
Federal regulation is so onerous because there is no escape within the US.
Andrew_M_Garland at April 2, 2012 7:44 AM
One of the worst bills ever, when Bush set precedent for the TARP bailout, was less than one page. It said the Secretary of the Treasury could do whatever he felt best with the money, apparently to include writing himself a half a billion dollar bonus check were he so inclined.
The health care reform act has the same essential problem, in that a lazy, someone dim-witted Congress signed over a lot of power to someone else to handle.
Storm Saxon's Gall Bladder at April 2, 2012 7:56 AM
and a page would then be 50 ft on a side. or the font smaller than microfilm.
It reminds me of the line item veto statement, which on surface sounds good. but would have only resulted in the worst complound sentences ever, 3 page long "lines".
These aren't about logic but about covering their ass, paying off their supporters, and being lawyers
Joe J at April 2, 2012 10:25 AM
I vote for tweet-sized laws.
Don't kill people, don't teabag your neighbor's wife, etc.
Meloni at April 2, 2012 1:45 PM
Can we also say the tax code is cruel and unusual punishment because the average person can't read or understand it?
NikkiG at April 4, 2012 12:23 AM
I'm with Meloni. Short, simple laws. How about:
You shall not murder.
You shall not steal.
You shall not covet your neighbor's property.
You shall not bear false witness.
Do all that you have agreed to do.
Do not encroach on other persons or their property.
Ken R at April 4, 2012 2:37 AM
Leave a comment