No legislation without representation

[EvilRhino]

We all know what the D's did in 2013. They held a basic majority. Rep Holbert has pointed out the numbers before; xx in the senate, xx in the house.

The bad gun laws passed without a single R vote. It seems like we need some kind of fail safe law that states that if you don't have a single rep from the other team, the law doesn't pass. That way half the people (likely more than half in this case) don't get screwed over by partisanship. In addition, all the red counties don't get screwed by the Denver/Boulder powerhouse.

From what I know of the U.S. Senate, it takes more than 51 in most cases. Filibuster proof and other buzz words.

I realize the pendulum swings both ways and someday R's might control all 3 branches again, but it would still seem like a good approach to prevent overreach. The new gun laws have bi-partisan support to repeal the mag ban.

I know Rep Holbert said each rep can only introduce 5 laws per session, so maybe someone has one left in their pocket. I'm just not sure if this would be the opposite of a kill committee or just another brick in the wall.

I think this law is better than my spiteful "lower all the speed limits to 15 mph for the children". [Sarcasm2]

[Great-Kazoo]

Following your line of thinking. IF a D doesn't get on board, we don't move forward?

[MarkCO]

We have Ds on board though. :)

[Great-Kazoo]

We have Ds on board though. :)

I was referring to this sentence of the OP's
.
It seems like we need some kind of fail safe law that states that if you don't have a single rep from the other team, the law doesn't pass

SO the R's propose Gun Law X. It allows CCW on ANY campus in CO. Not 1 D goes along with it. That mean we drop the issue?

[Big E3]

I think every new law that is passed should have an expiration date. That way every law would need to be reviewed to be renewed or allowed to go away without the votes. A lot like the Clinton assault weapon ban.

[sniper7]

Nah....I'd rather wait to see us get majority (hopefully that happens), then repeal what the rats did and then cram a shit load of worthless bills down their throats.

[buffalobo]

It's not conductive to a representative government. The parties are prone to change. Or merge. Or split. etc. etc. Further some don't have a party.

I think we need to make it 10x harder to pass a bill than it is to repeal one. Then we can slowly get some efficiency in our system.


Well said.

[Jeffrey Lebowski]

Nah....I'd rather wait to see us get majority (hopefully that happens), then repeal what the rats did and then cram a shit load of worthless bills down their throats.

The Rs never have the balls for that.

[Ranger353]

...I think we need to make it 10x harder to pass a bill that it is to repeal one. Then we can slowly get some efficiency in our system.
That is spot on. The process is meant to be slow and arduous for a reason. A slow and deliberate process is to prevent the introduction of frivolous bills that are later overturned in court, or through later legislation. Bills that are signed into laws then repealed within 2-5 years serve no one, they waste tax payer dollars and do not promote faith in the legislative process.

[SamuraiCO]

Nah....I'd rather wait to see us get majority (hopefully that happens), then repeal what the rats did and then cram a shit load of worthless bills down their throats.


This. Elections matter.

[EvilRhino]

Nah....I'd rather wait to see us get majority (hopefully that happens), then repeal what the rats did and then cram a shit load of worthless bills down their throats.

Thus causing the pendulum to swing back the other way and the cycle continues. I'd rather have pure gridlock than one-sided partisan bills. What's the best case scenario? R's win super majority and make a law that you can't mess with gun rights. Then things change and the the D's "repeal what the rats did and then cram a shit load of worthless bills down their throats."

I'm just looking at the facts from a neutral position. We didn't win back a majority last election even though there were major gains for R's across the country. We couldn't get rid of a spineless governor who waffled on support for the bills because we ran a guy who's nickname was "Both ways Beupreaux". The 2 districts that had recalls go to R's lost to D's in a mid-term election with low turn out for D's. Rapsheet Fields and Aguilar both easily won re-election with about 70%, as did many D's who voted for this crap. Call it district gerrymandering or whatever you want, there are going to be D reps with stupid ideas.

The Sheriff's lawsuit already lost stage 1 with a judge appointed by G.W. How the BGC didn't get attacked as a poll tax, I don't know. How the Heller decision of common use doesn't apply to the hundreds of thousands of mags already here, I don't know. I know states like Montana and Arizona are passing laws to nullify Fed gun laws, but that's not the position we are in.

My thought is it's a fail safe like TABOR, which seems to piss them off, so I like it. Short of there being a test like the citizenship test be required to vote, we're stuck with low-info voters who think this is American Idol and are swayed by emotion vs. reason and real common sense. They've never read either Constitution and are spoon fed the things that are their "rights". Food, housing, internet, college, health care, etc.

[BPTactical]

How about this thought: we have enough freaking laws already!

[TFOGGER]

It's not conductive to a representative government. The parties are prone to change. Or merge. Or split. etc. etc. Further some don't have a party.

I think we need to make it 10x harder to pass a bill that it is to repeal one. Then we can slowly get some efficiency in our system.

Yes. Legislative gridlock is ideal. Wealready have thousands of often conflicting laws and regulations on the books that nobody can be bothered to enforce, except when they selectively want to fuck with a particular person or organization.


I think every new law that is passed should have an expiration date. That way every law would need to be reviewed to be renewed or allowed to go away without the votes. A lot like the Clinton assault weapon ban.

Absolutely. Make the renewal process just slightly more streamlined than the initial legislative process, as long as the language doesn't change. If someone wants to amend an existing law, then it is treated as new legislation, and must undergo the same scrutiny as any other new legislation. Make the expiration dates fall on odd numbered years, so that hopefully the election cycle will mitigate the passage of partisan garbage like what got shoved down our throats in 2012. Laws that are passed by referendum should be allowed to have longer terms, perhaps 15 or 19 years.

[Big E3]

Also, all executive orders should expire thirty days after the president who signed it leaves office. If the order is such a good thing congress should have to made it into law, or if it is a necessary order the incoming president has thirty days to continue it.

[Jamnanc]

It's hard to correlate not having an R vote for a bill to "Not having representation," if the officials from either party who pass the law won a popular election. Not having representation was in the declaration because we were being ruled by a king and parliament over seas and paid taxes, but did not get a seat at the table.

[Bailey Guns]

How about this thought: we have enough freaking laws already!

Exactly. I find it a little ironic that people who tend to complain about the scope of government in their lives are wanting the government to "make more laws" to deal with things that can already be dealt with.

We don't need more laws. We need people to get more engaged. It isn't our system that's broken, it's the people. It's always the people.

[TFOGGER]

The problem seems to be that elected officials feel the need to "do something" to justify their parasitic existence. Most of the time, this amounts to unnecessary legislation. Currently, there is no effective way to prune the Kudzu that is our collection of laws and statutes. Sometimes the first step to eliminating a problem is to contain it. Think of legislation as an epidemic or forest fire: While it may be necessary, usually it is in the best interest of the citizens to limit the damage as much as possible.

[hollohas]

I've heard people many times equate the effectiveness of the government to how many laws are passed each term. In other words, a legislature that passes 100 new laws is better than one that passes 10.

I completely disagree. IMO, it's the legislatures that past the fewest laws that are the best. I do agree with some others here though, it should be easier the repeal a law than pass a new one.

[Aloha_Shooter]

Hmmm ... sure would be nice if they needed a simple majority to repeal laws but a supermajority (2/3 or 3/4) to pass new ones.

[EvilRhino]

So most agree that it should be harder to pass laws, but because I suggested a new law to make it harder to pass laws, it's bad? [Bang]

Yes, No taxation without representation was based on not having a seat at the table. I don't have a single D rep. (thankfully in Holbert's district) If you recall, several counties wanted to start their own state over this citing the power of Denver/Boulder, so it's not too far off from a tea party mentality.

I don't know how to or what would motivate people to get involved. Kudos to the people who invested so much into the recalls. IIRC, several went on to run for office, Head for Pueblo clerk, Knight for NRA board, etc. I was at the capital in 2013 with Tmleader03, met with reps. I was with Anthony turning in the recall petition (for Morse IIRC) to the state secretary office. I went to the Sheriff's meetings and came here to give an AAR. Before the election, the NRA was giving free workshops to try to "get out the vote". MAYBE 10-12 of us showed up to Cabelas...and I remember being told here that it was poor planning because the f**king Broncos were playing.

I'd be happy with everything having a sunset clause.

[Ranger353]

Hmmm ... sure would be nice if they needed a simple majority to repeal laws but a supermajority (2/3 or 3/4) to pass new ones.
That could be done with a state constitutional amendment via a ballot initiative.

[DavieD55]

How about we scale back the length of the state legislative session from 120 to 60 days as a way to limit their time to micomanage, pillage and plunder.