Key issue: Why should we require Congress to remove old laws in proportion to approving new laws ?

The Comstock Act, passed in 1873, contained several provisions that would be considered anachronistic and problematic in today's society. Here are some of the key actions prohibited by the act, along with a probabilistic assessment of how they might be viewed today:

1) Mailing obscene materials (90% likely to be considered anachronistic) The definition of "obscene" materials has evolved significantly since the 19th century. While there are still laws regulating the distribution of certain types of explicit content, the broad prohibition on mailing any materials deemed "obscene" would likely be considered an overly restrictive and outdated approach.

2) Mailing contraceptives or information about contraception (95% likely to be considered anachronistic) Access to contraception is now widely recognized as a fundamental aspect of reproductive health and rights. Prohibiting the mailing of contraceptives or information about contraception would be seen as a significant infringement on personal liberty and public health.

3) Mailing information about abortion (85% likely to be considered anachronistic) While abortion remains a controversial topic, the idea of completely prohibiting the mailing of any information related to abortion would be seen by many as an unacceptable restriction on free speech and access to medical information.

4) Mailing materials or information related to sexual health and sexuality (80% likely to be considered anachronistic) The Comstock Act's broad prohibition on mailing materials related to sexual health and sexuality would be seen as an outdated and harmful approach that stigmatizes and restricts access to important information and resources.

5) Mailing materials or information deemed "indecent" or "immoral" (75% likely to be considered anachronistic) The vague and subjective nature of terms like "indecent" and "immoral" would likely be seen as problematic in today's society, as they could be used to censor or restrict a wide range of materials based on personal or cultural biases.

It is important to note that while these provisions would likely be considered anachronistic by a significant portion of today's society, there may still be some individuals or groups who support similar restrictions based on their personal beliefs or values. However, the overall trend in recent decades has been towards greater openness, personal autonomy, and access to information related to sexual and reproductive health.
————————————-

Opinion Piece by Ramoan Steinway

Title: A Biblical Approach to Legislative Reform: The Parable of the Wheat and the Tares

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus tells the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares (Matthew 13:24-30). In this story, a farmer sows good seed in his field, but while he sleeps, an enemy comes and sows weeds (tares) among the wheat. When the plants grow, the farmer's servants ask if they should pull up the weeds, but the farmer instructs them to let both grow together until the harvest, at which time the weeds will be separated and burned, while the wheat will be gathered into his barn.

This parable offers a powerful metaphor for the state of our legislative system and the need for reform. Just as the farmer's field contained both wheat and tares, our body of laws includes both good and bad legislation. The Comstock Act, which stifled access to reproductive health information for decades, is a prime example of a "weed" that was allowed to grow unchecked, choking out the "wheat" of personal liberty and public well-being.

Drawing inspiration from this biblical wisdom, I propose a legislative reform that mirrors the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares. For every ten new bills introduced in Congress, one existing law must be "pulled up" and removed from the books. This process of separating the "wheat" from the "tares" would ensure that our legal framework remains healthy and productive, rather than being overrun by outdated or harmful statutes.

To ensure that this process is carried out in a timely manner, I suggest a one-month deadline for Congress to agree on which law to remove. If no decision is reached within that time, the oldest bill under consideration would be automatically "harvested" and repealed. However, just as the farmer allowed some flexibility in the timing of the harvest, Congress would have the option to extend the deadline by one month if a majority of members vote in favor of the extension.

To add a measure of accountability, I propose that if Congress fails to remove an outdated law within the allotted timeframe (including any extensions), a sitting member of the ruling party would be "cast into the fire" and removed from office. This consequence would underscore the seriousness of the responsibility to keep our laws up-to-date and serve the greater good.

Just as the Parable of the Wheat and the Tares teaches us the importance of discernment and the ultimate reckoning of good and evil, this legislative reform proposal emphasizes the need to regularly assess the value and impact of our laws. By weeding out the "tares" of outdated or harmful legislation, we can create a legal framework that better reflects our values and promotes the flourishing of all citizens.

Implementing this reform will require wisdom, courage, and a commitment to the greater good. It may be tempting to let the "weeds" grow alongside the "wheat," but we have seen the dangers of allowing bad laws to persist, as they can be used by rogue administrations to pursue agendas that lead to social upheaval and economic instability.

In the end, we must remember that the purpose of the law is to serve the people and promote justice. By regularly separating the "wheat" from the "tares" in our legislative system, we can work towards a more perfect union that upholds the principles of liberty, equality, and the pursuit of happiness for all. Let us take this lesson from scripture and apply it to the task of building a better society for generations to come.

———————————-

Opinion Piece by Ramoan Steinway

Title: A Bold Proposal for Legislative Efficiency and Accountability

In light of the cautionary tale provided by the Comstock Act and the urgent need for a more efficient and responsive legislative process, I propose a radical new approach to lawmaking. This proposal aims to ensure that our legal framework remains lean, relevant, and free from the burden of outdated or harmful statutes.

The core of this proposal is a "ten-for-one" rule: for every ten new bills introduced in Congress, one existing law must be removed from the books. This would compel lawmakers to carefully consider the necessity and impact of each new piece of legislation while also forcing them to confront the legacy of past laws that may no longer serve the public interest.

To ensure that this process is not indefinitely delayed, I propose a strict timeline for the removal of outdated laws. If Congress is unable to agree on which law to remove within a reasonable period of one month, the oldest bill under consideration would be automatically repealed. This default mechanism would prevent legislative gridlock and ensure a steady flow of old laws being cleared from the books.

However, I recognize that there may be instances where an older law still holds significant value or relevance. In such cases, Congress would have the option to extend the deadline for removing that specific law by an additional month, provided that a majority of members vote in favor of the extension. This would allow for a more nuanced approach to evaluating the merits of existing legislation.

To add teeth to this proposal and ensure that lawmakers take their responsibility to modernize our legal framework seriously, I suggest a bold accountability measure. If Congress fails to remove an outdated law within the allotted timeframe (including any extensions), a sitting member of the ruling party would be automatically removed from office. This would send a clear message that a failure to keep our laws up-to-date is a dereliction of duty that will not be tolerated.

Admittedly, this proposal may seem drastic and perhaps even draconian to some. However, the stakes are high, and the consequences of inaction are severe. We have seen how outdated laws like the Comstock Act can be weaponized by rogue administrations to pursue regressive agendas, leading to social upheaval, economic instability, and even the threat of revolution.

By implementing this "ten-for-one" rule, along with strict timelines and accountability measures, we can create a legislative process that is more responsive to the needs of our society. It would encourage lawmakers to think carefully about the laws they propose and force them to confront the legacy of outdated statutes that continue to shape our lives in ways that may no longer be appropriate or just.

Change is never easy, and this proposal would undoubtedly face resistance from those who benefit from the status quo. However, we must be bold in our pursuit of a legal system that truly serves the interests of all citizens. The alternative is to continue down a path where the ghosts of bygone eras haunt our present and constrain our future.

It is time for a legislative revolution, one that prioritizes efficiency, relevance, and accountability. By embracing the "ten-for-one" rule and its accompanying measures, we can take a significant step towards building a more just, equitable, and responsive society for generations to come.