EDITORIAL: Congress could stand to repeal many laws
John Adams held dear the belief that our nation should possess “a government of laws and not of men.” Mr. Adams shared Aristotle’s belief that “law should govern,” and wrote that “it is the duty of the people, therefore, in framing a constitution of government, to provide for an equitable mode of making laws, as well as for an impartial interpretation and a faithful execution of them; that every man may, at all times, find his security in them.”
The second president of our country was right. Without the rule of law, anarchy would rule our nation. The trouble is, our leaders have never stopped adding laws — whether our security really requires them or not. As John Dalbert-Acton once said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” and, sadly, it can be argued those at the highest levels of power have spent centuries corrupting the founders’ original vision for our nation. Sad, too, is the fact that among many in politics and the press, corrupting that original vision has now become the prevailing vision for our nation.
As University of Tennessee law professor Glenn Reynolds aptly points out in a recent column in USA Today, the fact that Congress is deemed a success or failure based on how much or how little legislation it passes is completely ridiculous. Reynolds cites news reports regarding the 113th Congress, which The Hill called “historically unproductive” because “few Congresses have sent less bills to a president in 20 years” than it did.
“This, I’m afraid, reflects a common journalistic belief that when legislatures are passing legislation, they’re producing something valuable,” says Mr. Reynolds. “But while it’s true that when oil wells produce oil, or gold mines gold or automobile factories cars, those entities are being productive, it’s not so clear that every time a legislature passes a law it’s producing something of value. In fact, there’s good reason to suspect just the opposite.”
With rare exception, Mr. Reynolds says, when Congress passes a law, it is usually either limiting someone’s freedom or spending taxpayer money. Pork-barrel projects or bills that shield special interests from competition are net losses, and once any legislation is enacted, it is virtually impossible to repeal. In addition, there are now so many laws on the books that countless Americans are felons, whether they know it or not.
Reynolds says “the problem with Congress is that nobody sees repealing laws as job No. 1,” and proposes creating a legislative body whose sole function is to repeal laws. The “House of Repeal,” as he calls it, would have no power outside of repealing laws, “meaning that for them, all the votes, campaign contributions, media exposure and opportunities for hearings would revolve around paring back the federal behemoth.”
The key issue to consider here is an economic one: The bigger the glut of laws, the bigger the drag on prosperity and freedom. Conversely, repealing laws generally expands freedom and saves money.
While we don’t necessarily need a third house of Congress — though it’s not the craziest idea we’ve ever heard — fewer laws would be nice. How about, say, for every new law proposed, two old ones have to come off the books? John Adams would surely approve.