I like James Buchanan's perspective on governmental overreaching and the message of public choice theory:
A central message of public choice theory tells us that if politics generates undesirable results, it is better to examine the rules than to argue about different policies or to elect different representatives. Well and good. But those of us who have peddled this message have been too reluctant to get down and dirty with proposals for constitutional change. Hence, I felt challenged by the editor’s invitation to propose three specific amendments.
As many have observed, for better or worse, there isn't a lot of difference between our political parties... both want to spend us into bankruptcy, and neither is willing to leave us alone. Public choice theory says that the solution isn't to vote for different people (who will continue to let us down) but to change the rules of the game by, e.g., amending the Constitution.
Mr. Buchanan goes on to describe three amendments he favors, so I figure it's worth linking to one I have advocated for years: the Sunset Amendment, which would prevent Congress from passing any law that would stay in effect for more than six years.
You can make congressmen re-enact laws, but you can't make them think. A blanket rule would just make them churn out renewals mechanically. Congress has a limited capacity to think, and it couldn't possibly think meaningfully about all federal law every six years.
A rule like that would need to be limited in some way. Congress wouldn't need to re-enact patent law, would it? Or the federal criminal statutes? Besides, in many cases it's very important that the law remain relatively stable. With many laws, people plan on them not changing very much.
The proposal that I've heard a couple of times that seemed a good idea was to require a law to be passed by a 2/3 or 3/4 majority, else it had to have a sunset clause. That way we don't have to waste time reviewing laws that everyone agrees on.
BB: The amendment would have to be crafted in such a way that each law would have to be individually voted on again and not automatically renewed. And yes, this amendment would greatly limit the amount of time Congress had free to do other things, which is part of the point.
Dave: That's not a bad idea either.