On the Construct of Good Laws

A while ago I had a debate that led me to write down the principles I believe are inherent to constructing a good and just law. As with most things in life there are grey zones, and places where reasonable and liberty conscious men will disagree. We all have different opinions on what “reasonable risk” is for example, and may also debate what is a “direct cause and effect.” Sometimes these concepts are agreed on by everyone, and sometimes the path from point a. to point b. is not so clear cut.

That is not what I am here to debate. I am here to refine my guidelines, to make them as robust a fortress against tyranny as can be possible. I believe that one of the reasons that we have such terrible laws in this country is because there is not a rigidly defined set of rules for what type of law can be made. Lawmakers can see an issue, any issue, and decide “there ought to be a law. . . ” whether or not a law should be or not. The Constitution and Bill of Rights attempt to set limits on how far the laws can go, but don’t actually set any limits on the construct of those laws. It is more of a boundary than a guide. And we all know politicians, like toddlers, like to test boundaries. The goal of this guide would not be to set up a wall, but rather a path. With a path we could see how far off course the politicians have wandered and it would be far easier to call them on it. This would server to protect the constitution by ensuring that the lawmakers never get close enough to its walls to test them.

Continue reading