An idea to have fewer, better and stronger laws?

Question

Why not require 2/3 of a legislating body to pass a law, and 1/2 to repeal a law?

In a free country instituted to uphold inalienable rights, doesn't that make more sense then tyranny of the simple majority?
Obviously fewer laws would be passed, but only those most necessary would ever make it. However, bad laws could be eliminated just as easily as they can now. It would be harder to pass e.g. Jim Crow laws, but just as easy to repeal them.
It would provide a flip-flop buffer zone, keeping laws from changing back and forth constantly due to a small swing vote. This buffer would grow from zero to 17%, so that in order to change an existing law, 17% of Congress would have to change their mind instead of just one member.

Please don't lecture me on how I'm not the writer of the Constitution or how I'm not God or whatever. How the hell is anyone ever supposed to have an idea if just the ACT of running it by offends everyone?

Answer 1

You shouldn't be writing this here, you should be sending this to you representative in the house and senate. You sound like a well informed well educated person-alot more so than some of the illiterate cartoons in answers, so don't take my answer as criticism. An amazing amount of people don't know how to contact their senators and such, it is so sad. In order to see change then write your congressman, and write often. Or vote for someone else next election.

Answer 2

There is a 2/3 safeguard written into the constitution. If the House and Senate both pass a law and the president vetoes it, they need 2/3 to override the veto.

If the president concurs with the law and signs it into law, 2 of the 3 branches of government have approved it, so you still have a 2/3 majority of sorts.

Answer 3

First lets get rid of all the lobbyists who hold the real power over our government then we can talk about majority passage of laws, the system is broke, and the lobbyist are not mechanics...the American voters are.

the Washington Post, the number of federal lobbyists has more than doubled since 2000 to 34,750. In 1996 lobbyists spent $800 million. The Center for Public Integrity found that, since 1998, they had spent nearly $13 billion to influence Congress.

In the first study of its kind, the Center found that 1,300 registered lobbyists—representing 6,000 clients—had given $1.8 million to President George W. Bush since 2000. Fifty-two of these lobbyists served as fundraisers for Bush and raised another $6 million. Another 79 lobbyists served as treasurers for Congressional campaign committees. Of these lobbyists, some 250 are former members of Congress or agency heads and 2,000 of them formerly worked in senior government positions. Upon his election, Bush appointed 92 of them to advisory teams to effect regulatory decisions in every branch of government.

In February 2006 PoliticalMoneyLine revealed that lobbying groups broke all records, spending $1.165 billion in the first six months of 2005. This isn’t even the total as the law doesn’t require that many programs and other services paid for by lobbyists be disclosed.

Some claim business corrupts government. During the Bush administration business corruption produced the world’s largest bankruptcies: Enron and WorldCom. Corruption at Global Crossing, Adelphia, Tyco, ImClone, Merrill Lynch, Qwest, and Arthur Andersen resulted in additional problems. In February 2006 American International Group, one of the world’s largest insurance companies, was fined $1.64 billion for fraud, bidrigging, and improper accounting. The same month Nortel Networks paid a $2.4 billion settlement fee for an accounting scandal. News of insider deals, kickbacks, illegal fees, and other corrupt business practices fill the financial pages.

Answer 4

If it took 2/3 to pass a law, but only 1/2 to repeal it? Why not just make it 1/2 either way, to make or break? Which is what we have now (well, 51% to pass/fail/repeal).

Answer 5

I dont know if that would be effective, but I think that your question is thoughtful and well intentioned.

the legislative machine is so complicated. Sometimes I think it would be nice to take the whole US code and throw it in the trash and start over with teh constitution.

Answer 6

Both should be fixed at 60%.Yes it is a very fine idea.And get rid of electoral college.

Answer 7

If there is any hope of ever cleaning it up you have to get rid of the lobby's.