Sunday, June 14, 2009
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS 6 OVER-REGULATION
Having done Friedman's amendments & Heinelin's thoughts I will add my tuppence worth. I am going to be following Heinlein's view that the purpose is to fill the Constitution with negatives - things government is prevented from doingI also want to keep them short as the 10 original ones were. .
For example it would allow challenging the constitutionality of the EPA's regulation of CO2. If their cost benefit analysis was more convincing than the EPA's that the amount of damage caused by allowed industrial smoke release or indeed car exhausts was greater, proportionately, to the cost (Kyoto costs the world $800 million a day) then their rules would fail. I suspect an awful lot of nuclear regulation would also fall since nuclear involves slightly fewer deaths than windmills while producing more than 100 times as much power.
I think the long term result of this would clear away a very large amount of the regulatory mess that so restricts growth in western countries. I believe the ban on smoking in public places would also fail this test & indded cannt imagine it being passed in the first place though a limited ban or one that simply required pubs to have good air conditioning if they wanted to let people smoke might squeeze through.
Over-regulation being harmful to national wealth Congress shall make or maintain no law which, under reasonable cost benefit analysis, imposes a cost benefit ratio more than 4 times greater than allowed in a significant & similar situationThis would allow the challenging of an awful lot of "environmental" regulation which is hyped on scare stories & give a major incentive to fight such scares.
For example it would allow challenging the constitutionality of the EPA's regulation of CO2. If their cost benefit analysis was more convincing than the EPA's that the amount of damage caused by allowed industrial smoke release or indeed car exhausts was greater, proportionately, to the cost (Kyoto costs the world $800 million a day) then their rules would fail. I suspect an awful lot of nuclear regulation would also fall since nuclear involves slightly fewer deaths than windmills while producing more than 100 times as much power.
I think the long term result of this would clear away a very large amount of the regulatory mess that so restricts growth in western countries. I believe the ban on smoking in public places would also fail this test & indded cannt imagine it being passed in the first place though a limited ban or one that simply required pubs to have good air conditioning if they wanted to let people smoke might squeeze through.
