Using Wikis to Catch Outdated and Bad Laws? 137
Mick Ohrberg asks: "While listening to NPR this morning, I heard about the ridiculous law, passed in 1675, that orders the arrest of all American Indians entering Boston, and just now, 330 years later, is ready to be repealed. There are a LOT of really outdated and/or inappropriate laws out there; would an 'open' Wiki-style approach to law-making (with appropriate supervision, of course) be able to catch more of these 'bad' laws? Should the law-makers be able to keep track of all these laws, or are the number of laws simply too large for that relatively small group of people to keep track of? The more and more outdated copyright laws also come to mind as an area that could stand some more scrutiny."
The laws ARE open (Score:4, Interesting)
That said - this document would be HUGE and frankly no one will want to read it.
I would love to run to become a congress critter with a sole platform of "I will not vote for any law that I can not read and understand". Unfortunately - I would have to vote against pretty much EVERY law being writen today. Of course the libertarian in me says this will be a good thing
New laws more important than old ones (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, keep in mind that laws that are not enforced might as well not exist. If they do get suddenly enforced, I believe a court may very well turn over any decision because of this selective enforcement.
It could work, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
The real problem is going to be politcal. Unless you very carefully limit the definition of "bad laws" you open yourself up to all kinds of partisan spamming. Left wingers will put up all anti-gay marriage laws, far right wingers will start listing welfare laws, white supremicists will put up all laws pertaining to non-descrimination, etc.
If you can deal with that issue, I think you will be fine. If not, the wiki will just become a jumbled yell fest.
Re:New laws more important than old ones (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:experation date (Score:3, Interesting)
How about a byte quota for legislators (Score:3, Interesting)