A Law Passed with Exemptions,

A Bad Law

Why would a good law, a meaningful, helpful, widely applicable law, need to have any exemptions? If it needs to exempt or subsidize someone or something, then it’s a bad law.

Only poor or bad laws, designed to subsidize or shield ones political contributors, or penalize ones political enemies would have any need for exemptions. Maybe it’s just a poorly conceived law and badly written and extensive attempts have been made to improve it when it should have been scrapped and the entire reason for it revisited.

Good laws should address real needs expressed by the electorate, not needs imagined by politicians seeking political advantages.

Good laws are simple to write because they have a simple straightforward purpose, correcting a widely perceived easily understood wrong. No exemptions, subsidies, or credits are needed. Do something new or begin doing something differently that is important or helps all the people, stop doing things badly that just help your contributors and harm most others. If it is complexly written, it is by its very nature a bad law.

A 3,000, or 300 or 30 page law, is definitely a bad law. If the reason for a law and the description of the solution can’t be understood in writing in a few pages, then it’s not a real problem, or a real solution, or both; and it’s probably deceitful and corrupt, and in its true purpose, a bad law.

After all, how many new laws do we need? I’ve seen over 1,100 new laws per year attempted. That is pure idiocy. New laws truly made necessary by changes in human behavior couldn’t honestly exceed ten annually.

Incidentally, we can’t equitably enforce the laws passed last year, or last decade, or the last century. We can’t even provide surveillance of them; the solution, stop passing laws that cannot be enforced equitably.

Old laws, obsolete, no longer applicable laws most be removed from affect much more quickly and much more publicly. Even archaic laws used as device to catch criminals when no other legal way can be discovered, need to be eliminated. If the only way a criminal can be caught is because they don’t have a horse hitching post or a clean spittoon, then you have way more pressing problems than a new or an archaic law can fix.

A Constitutional Amendment making Congress delete twice as many laws as they pass for the next hundred years should bring the number of applicable laws down to a manageable number that infringe less upon our human rights, or they could do it because it makes good sense.