Using Wikis to Catch Outdated and Bad Laws?

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in 1675, that orders the arrest of all American Indians entering Boston, and just now, 330 years later, is ready to be repealed. There are a LOT of really outdated and/or inappropriate laws out there; would an 'open' Wiki-style approach to law-making (with appropriate supervision, of course) be able to catch more of these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 The more and more outdated copyright laws also come to mind as an area that could stand some more scrutiny."

Comments

CowboyNeal Rolex & Penis Enlargement Act of 20

[S. Baldrick]

nuff said.

err that should be 2006

[S. Baldrick]

Someone needs to send slashdot some subject field enlargement pills.

Re:Legislated to Oblivion

[Rocketship Underpant]

If I were constructing a government today, in the constitution, I'd have a section saying that all laws must have a summary and rationale attached to them, detailing exactly why the law is required, and it would be a crime for somebody to vote for a bill without reading at least the summary and rationale. I'd suggest something stricter. Give every bill a sunset of one year, so that every law on the books must be renewed or expire on an annual basis. That way, only the most worthwhile laws will stay in force. Additionally, require every legislator to quote a bill verbatim from memory if he wishes to vote "yea". If he's not intimately familiar with every clause and its ramifications, he shouldn't be voting for it. If it's too complex and full of legalese to remember, he shouldn't be voting for it. Or better yet, put a comprehensive set of just laws in the constitution, and get rid of the legislature.

Re:There's just too much law

[Anonymous Coward]

The number of issues that the law covers is literally infinite.

Is there a law covering proper use of the word "literally"?

I'll bite

[zbik]

Courtesy of fortune -m:

Atlanta makes it against the law to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or street lamp.

Frankfort, Kentucky, makes it against the law to shoot off a policeman's tie.

In Columbia, Pennsylvania, it is against the law for a pilot to tickle a female flying student under her chin with a feather duster in order to get her attention.

In Tulsa, Oklahoma, it is against the law to open a soda bottle without the supervision of a licensed engineer.

It is against the law for a monster to enter the corporate limits of Urbana, Illinois.

Sho' they got to have it against the law. Shoot, ever'body git high, they wouldn't be nobody git up and feed the chickens. Hee-hee. -- Terry Southern

Re:I'll bite

[DavidTC]

Atlanta makes it against the law to tie a giraffe to a telephone pole or street lamp.

You know, people make fun of that law, but it works...I've never seen a giraffe tied to a telephone pole or street lamp in Atlanta.

And can you imagine the chaos if someone actually did do that? We'd have all sorts of traffic problems as people slowed down to gawk, and, trust me, Atlanta has enough traffic problems for two cities already. (Luckily, we've started exporting them to surrounding suburbs.)

The one obvious objection seems to be 'but no one would ever want to do that', but there are plenty of laws banning things 'no one' would ever want to do, because there isn't anything stupid enough that some damn fool won't try it.

And if it's true that no one ever wants to do it, I don't see the problem with said law. ;)

That government still exists.

[Rhinobird]

Why is it a problem, if the law was made by a government that doesn't exist anymore?

As far as I can tell, the city of Boston, and its government, still exists. Can't be too sure, though, as I am in Denver. But I did a google search and found some pictures. They pretty much convinced me.