Haha! I fooled another person!
Your ideas helped me think through mine better as well. Ditto.

We agree again! You are a sharp guy unitedlc

I have mixed feelings about your approach. While I absolutely do like the idea of a mechanism that "kicks out" a law that has failed, I don't like laws changing all of the time. We both seem to agree the fewer laws the better, but there is something to be said for stability as well.

I liken it to playing a game of Monopoly. When I start the game, I fully understand the rules, whether I like them or not. When someone starts getting beat they might try to say, "hey, let's change a rule to this instead" to prolong the game. (Not that Monopoly needs prolonging, but you get my point). In our society, government does not like winners and losers. They want everyone to continue to play the game until death. Whenever someone gets ahead, they change the rules. You can plan for stability, you can't plan for constantly changing laws.

Good points, well stated.

I kind of like the dual threat better. Subject to it as well as swearing they read it by threat of prosecution.

If we're going to name it after Pelosi, it should have a clause that it's fully binding even if the legislator in question has the IQ of day-old bread.

What will keep them from not reading it is the Number 2 point.

Do they even know what the word "I" means?

I have been watching from afar what is happening to this country and Ayn was correct:

This country has been divided into "groups" with "group think" prevailing over individualism and principled thinking and "whoever has the biggest gang wins" is the mantra of the left.

Objective measure must be part of the testable results of the experiment.

The reason I like this approach is that all laws become temporary.

You and I totally agree on the desired outcome. I argue for this particular measure (and like yours as well) because it will drive behaviors to limit government.

Sadly that is a very true statement. At least the politicians won't have the defense of "not knowing" what they were getting into. It would also slow down the passage of some laws. A quick math calculation could tell you that nobody could have possibly read the "Un-ACA" prior to it's passage.

What a remarkable ruler to go figure a way to fetch ten more states while spending all that time at golf courses too. Good golly gee whiz!

Maybe it wasn't George W in her squirrel cage skull. Maybe it was Bush 41, George H. W. He's the guy who helped Maxine Waters drop bombs on children in Aleppo with Gary Johnson and invade Korea with Putin. Or some such nonsense from Democrat Delusionland.

Well, it seems pretty good on the surface; but even
if passed and ratified, it would probably be ignored,
as much of our Constitution is anyway.

As to Pelosi's brain: what brain?

0 the Great did not imply 57 states. Let's get the story straight. Here's his actual statement that I had transcribed from the video of his blather:
“I’ve now been in fifty-seven states, I think one left to go—one left to go, Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

So that's 57 states + 1 left to go + Alaska + Hawaii, which the staff wouldn't justify.
Don’t believe a ketchup myth. It was never 57 states. It was 60 states!
Sixty.

Yes, but who measures the results? That is always a problem with government data. It is ALWAYS manipulated to prove a point. Hell, look at unemployment rates. Depending on who you talk to it is wonderful or it is terrible. Global warming... Both sides manipulate the data to fit their agenda. We will never be able to know the truth about any of it!

Logic itself could have predetermined that the stimulus would fail. Bush did us no favors starting down that road that Obama continued on gleefully. It once again was Welfare. If a business is failing, then generally all they need is money. If they can't acquire a loan and no one will buy stock, then that means that nobody cares if that business stays in business. Why should the tax payers have to pay for the mistakes of so-called businessmen?

My point is that an ethical litmus test should be applied to every law/stimulus/war/etc BEFORE it is implemented. It is not rocket surgery to determine whether or not a "government program" will work. Generally, assume it will not.

I agree with all of that; however, you have to admit, requiring people to assert the intended result and a measured value would significantly reduce the legislation passed, legislation surviving and public understanding of legislation.
Is there any way the stimulus could not be viewed as a complete failure under this measure?

Yes, that is why we need the punishments to be very specific. Someone will eventually hold a criminal accountable. If law is vague, then law is irrelevant.

Even if welfare worked to accomplish what it was supposedly set out to accomplish, it is still wrong in every aspect. The whole premise behind welfare is redistribution from someone that is deemed to have "more than he needs" to someone who is deemed to "not have enough". No success can ever come from the premise of welfare because it is ethically unfit.

Charity is an entirely different premise. As long as you are not a mooching A-hole, then someone is bound to help you out in a time of unforeseen string of bad circumstances. If there was no welfare, and charity was more relied upon, people would be much nicer.

Sounds good until you realize that with damn few exceptions, they are a group of unashamed liars that hold no respect, or adherence to any law. Until we decide to hold national media responsible for their actions, we will see little change in the actions of congress.

Oh, I agree, minimize laws, maximize freedom! That is kind of my point in ensuring an agreed-to positive outcome is produced.

For example, welfare, should improve the life of poor people, and if done properly, reduce the number of poor people. Clearly neither has happened, and we have ever-increasing roles on welfare. Therefore, it doesn't work. On and on.

What law has already been tested? There is no "control" to compare the experiment to.

Hmmm. Not sure I like the social experiment thing. Any law that would need to be "tested" doesn't sound like something that would be beneficial to all individuals (the most important minority). I personally subscribe to "the fewer the number of laws, the better". A law should only be put into place to protect the individual's life, property and freedom from others. Not to protect someone from themselves and their own decisions.

Originally, I was thinking that you were arguing statistics be taken for the vote, vs a law defining the meaning of a vote, but I figured that out before my comment.

I still like the concept that all laws are social experiments, and they should have a criteria (outcome) they must satisfy in the future agreed to as part of the law, or they become void.

I'm right there with you. That is the only problem with our Constitution. A little bit of it was worded juuuust vaguely enough that judges and attorneys have things they think are arguable....

Haha! When I wrote the Amendment I thought about making it for any voting, for or against, but thought the better of it. I see where you were going though, perhaps as a way to help slow down "party line" voting. The way it is now, many bills don't get read by one party or another because it was written by an opposite party member. Perhaps we could add something along the lines of "Prior to casting any 'nay' vote, you must read at least the intro/summary pages." or something to that affect!

Keep it the way it is. Don't lawyer it up. If you do, politicians will forever be arguing on the language, meaning and application of such simple intent.