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".

[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.