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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.