New Front Page         
NMJ Search              
International              
Islamist Terrorism      
Government & Politics
National & Local        
The Fifth Column       
Culture Wars             
Editorials                  
Analysis                   
Archive                     
NMJ Radio                 
NMJ TV                    
Constitutional Literacy
American Fifth Column
Islamist Terrorism
Books 
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...         
Facebook            
Twitter           
Site Information
About Us              
Contact Us           
US Senate
US House
Anti-Google
Sunrises & Sunsets
Are Both Wondrous to Behold
October 29, 2004 - `I have . . . often and often . . . looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting sun.' - Ben Franklin, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention alluding both to the birth of America and the carved sun on the back of the chair which he faced during each day of the proceedings.

The birth of new legislation may create the same feelings of sunrise for its authors. Often, it is a job well done. Rarely does it reach the level of prose contained within the US Constitution. We can, without debasing that document, compare it to legislation. When we do so, we find that many scholars, legislators and judges consider the Constitution a "living document”. The Constitution has been amended and subjected to countless reviews and reinterpretations as society has evolved. So, if what is generally considered to be the finest political document ever written can stand occasional review and revision by lesser mortals, why is the Social Security Act sacrosanct? It’s baffling to me. The Constitution changes over time. Only the Ten Commandments and entitlement spending programs don’t. This notion of sunrise and its opposite sunset can, however be found in legislation.

I’m betting the average person is unaware of the meaning behind a "sunset clause” in a piece of legislation. If the idea of having an end date to a piece of enacted legislation is new to you, you are not alone. Sunset clauses or end dates for laws are not common practice. But they should be. As is illustrated by Ben Franklin, one man’s sunset is another man’s sunrise.

"Sunsetting” is referred to in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. Though he didn’t use the word, Jefferson believed that a version of sunsetting sprang directly from natural law. "Every constitution . . . and every law,” he wrote, "naturally expires at the end of 19 years,” which was considered the length of a generation in his era. This belief derives from a different notion of the social contract than is prevalent today. The social contract was a democratic agreement entered into willfully in Jefferson’s era. Now we are born into a supposed social contract where we have no democratic right of assent or dissent to these "positive freedoms” accorded us. Sunset clauses would erase this democratic deficit and renew the meaning and intent of the social contract Jefferson was advocating.

Contemporary sunset clauses began during the 1970s when University of Chicago political theorist, Theodore J. Lowi, proposed the "tenure-of-statutes act” limiting laws which create a federal agency, to anywhere from five to ten years. He hoped this would result in effective oversight of these agencies by analysts who appropriately measure their success or failure

In reality, most sunset audit agency staffs need to demonstrate that regulation was not necessary, not evaluate for success or failure, to terminate an agency.

When the Federal Violent Crime Control Act of 1994 was passed, it banned the manufacture and import of "Assault Weapons." It also banned "high capacity" magazines. These provisions expired on September 13th, 2004.

The 1996 welfare reform act contained a sunset clause. President Bush proposed a new welfare reform bill. The House passed a version, yet the Democrat-controlled Senate has refused to allow a vote on welfare reform.

Some of the most important bills signed into law under President George W. Bush include "sunset” provisions.

▪ The 2001 Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act, Bush’s first tax cut, terminates at the close of 2010.

In order for President Bush and Congress to fit the $1.35 trillion tax cut into the Congressional budget goals, Congress and the President agreed to "sunset" (end) the tax act on December 31, 2010. Unless these provisions are renewed between now and then, the tax provisions of 2001 will be reinstated.

▪ The 2003 tax cut, which slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, contains various features that expire before 2013.

▪ Aspects of the USA Patriot Act phase out at the end of 2005.

Bruce Ackerman argued that because the Patriot Act was emergency legislation, it should include a sunset provision requiring it to lapse after two years

Whether or not a piece of legislation continues, sunset clauses ensure that continuing legislation has not outlived its usefulness. Congress passed the tax cuts with a sunset date included based upon the concerns of members that the tax cuts could create future budget pressures which merited a comprehensive review prior to renewal. This is good government. Recognizing human fallacy and thus the limits of the laws of man is wise. If we can do it when it comes to tax policy and national security, two paramount issues for all Americans, don’t we owe it to ourselves and the generations to come to also subject social welfare, health and retirement programs to periodic review and renewal processes that can adjust for societal change?

How do policy analysts approach legislative proposals?
http://www.sen.ca.gov/ftp/SEN/COMMITTEE/STANDING/LOC_GOV/_home/Pppo.htm

A Short History of Sunsets
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2004/story_mooney_janfeb04.html


Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, BasicsProject.org, its editorial staff, board or organization. Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to The New Media Journal. The New Media Journal is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations. The New Media Journal is not supported by any political organization. The New Media Journal is a division of BasicsProject.org, a non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) research and educational initiative. Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org is copyrighted. Basics Project’s goal is the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

hit counter

The New Media Journal.us © 2011
A Division of BasicsProject.org
 

Dreamhost Review