Would you agree with the idea that every law the government passes must be accompanied by officially-stated objectives that can be legally challenged in a court of law?
To take an example. Let's say the government passes a new law, but all empirical evidence suggests that this law is not achieving its intended objective or is conflicting with the ovjectives of another law. Of course we should give the law a chance to prove itself, but once the law has been in the books for a sufficiently long period of time for its proclaimed objectives to have started to take effect, but with no evidence that it has started to do so, from that point forward it coud be challenged. Should we thus be allowed to ignore this law on those grounds? This would essentially mean that the law could be enforced only as long as:
1. It's officially-stated objectives do not conflict with the officially-stated objectives of another law, and
2. No empirical evidence (after the law has been in effect long enough to have had a chance to prove itself) has yet proven the law to be ineffective in achieving its stated objectives.
The way I see it, this would force a certain amount of honesty on politicians as they'd have to explicitly declare the objectives of the law and have the law stand or fall based on these intended objectives.
Would you support such a policy?
To take an example. Let's say the government passes a new law, but all empirical evidence suggests that this law is not achieving its intended objective or is conflicting with the ovjectives of another law. Of course we should give the law a chance to prove itself, but once the law has been in the books for a sufficiently long period of time for its proclaimed objectives to have started to take effect, but with no evidence that it has started to do so, from that point forward it coud be challenged. Should we thus be allowed to ignore this law on those grounds? This would essentially mean that the law could be enforced only as long as:
1. It's officially-stated objectives do not conflict with the officially-stated objectives of another law, and
2. No empirical evidence (after the law has been in effect long enough to have had a chance to prove itself) has yet proven the law to be ineffective in achieving its stated objectives.
The way I see it, this would force a certain amount of honesty on politicians as they'd have to explicitly declare the objectives of the law and have the law stand or fall based on these intended objectives.
Would you support such a policy?