I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body.
Excellent
– the more impediments to legislation the better. But instead of
following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another
whose single duty is to repeal laws.
“I note one proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent – the more impediments to legislation the better. But instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a two-thirds majority… while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere one-third minority. Preposterous? Think about it. If a bill is so poor that it cannot command two-thirds of your consents, is it not likely that it would make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as one-third is it not likely that you would be better off without it?” – Robert Heinlein, “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”
Deja vu overwhelmed me as I read about AB 1634, the so-called California Healthy Pets Act, which would require sterilization of all dogs in California by 4 months of age. Professional breeders of purebred dogs could apply for exemptions.
The bill reminds me strongly of Sally Lieber’s ill-fated anti-spanking bill, and not just because both bills were authored by Democrats.
Both bills were written to try to solve perceived problems: the problem of child abuse and the problem of dog neglect. Both were written too broadly.
The anti-spanking bill was written so broadly as to equate a swat on the seat by a responsible parent with a beating. Spanking is an effective and often necessary part of child rearing. Beating a child is already illegal.
The pet sterilization bill is likewise too broad. The Healthy Pets Act requires sterilization at such a young age that the health of the animal could be imperiled, and requires sterilization of all mongrels, who are often healthier and less afflicted by the diseases of in-breeding than pure-bred dogs.
Moreover, many dog owners swear that their beloved mutts, being less high-strung, make better family pets than pure-bred dogs. And of course, mongrels are much less expensive.
Both bills met with massive public outcry, and were promptly re-written to soften their extreme positions.
Both bills would be onerous to law-abiding responsible pet-owners. Neither would affect the people actually causing the problems.
Consider: responsible law-abiding pet owners either get their pets fixed or confine them so that they cannot repeatedly breed. This is because responsible pet owners know that they will not be able to house or feed hundreds of cats, thousands of cats, millions and billions and trillions of cats … or dogs, for that matter. Nor will they be able to find loving homes for litter after litter of puppies and kittens.
No, the hordes of puppies and kittens euthanized in California’s animal shelters every year are overwhelmingly born to the neglected, unconfined pets of irresponsible, neglectful pet owners. In violation of city ordinance, these owners fail to license and leash these pets – only 10 percent of all dogs in California are licensed. What magic is going to cause these owners to suddenly obey a state law to sterilize their pets?
The biggest objection to both these laws is simply that it is none of the government’s dang business how a citizen disciplines his kids or sterilizes his dog.
Sally Lieber’s anti-spanking bill died a quiet death before it ever was made law. Let us hope that the Senate and governor of California have enough sense to kill the doggone mutt sterilization bill.
The fact is that we already have too many laws on the books. Every year the legislature makes more. The reasonable laws against murder and rape and stealing and fraud were all codified centuries ago, lifted from millennia-old common law. Now our legislators are trying to forbid everything not compulsory. The noose is tightening. Can a people live in freedom when every action is controlled by the state?
“But in writing your constitution let me invite attention to the wonderful virtues of the negative! … No conscript armies … No interference however slight with freedom of press, or speech, or travel, or assembly, or of religion, or of instruction, or communication, or occupation … What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting the government powers to do something that appears to need doing.” – Ibid
