Nerve Endings Firing Away

Shakespeare’s Mark Anothony says at Ceasar’s funeral, "The evil that men do, lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." [ from Atanu's sporadic Nehru rants, which I largely agree with]]

As legislators rush to introduce and pass bills that are gradually crossing over from traditional governmental boundaries, we must introspect not about legality of such action but rather constitutional grounding whether they should be allowed to pass any laws at all, especially far reaching ones. Of course, we look to the courts and the legislature to correct any “wrong” as in the case of civil rights in America or reservation quotas for minorities in India. But excessive reliability on the state will effectively hand the state control for making even the moral individual decisions, like the Terri Schiavo case. Thankfully for the inherent checks-n-balances in the American democracy, the courts have held their ground in spite of repeated pleas by right wing Christian groups to overturn the court’s decision.

Getting back to my initial point regards whether it is even alright for current legislators to pass laws that might affect our future. For e.g. the same-sex marriage ban brought in effect in several southern and Midwest states; within few years same-sex relationships might be culturally acceptable but since the law doesn’t allow it, gays cannot marry. Amend or overturn the law, you say? It isn’t exactly easy. In California where an “activist” judge allowed many gays to marry, the judgment was eventually overruled and marriages declared null and void simply because the law didn’t allow it. Gov. Arnold simply shrugged his shoulders and said, “I cannot do anything if the law says so”, while not doing anything to speak against the obsolete law too. Basically, it helped him maintain political neutrality that many politicians aspire for — hide your ideology behind the veil of a law.

The lawmakers who often set the agenda for the next generation are way past their prime and often might not be around to judge the intentional and unintentional effect of the laws they passed many years ago. As Rashmi Bansal put it succinctly, “I for one would still plump for youth. Because young politicians – thanks in part to their fancy overseas education – have a greater stake in seeing the country progress than politicians well past the prime of their lives.” There is an underlying truth in that statement. Why would you vote for something that you wouldn’t be affected by directly, at least not immediately? Sadly, the youth haven’t delivered either, at least as much as expected.

Should lawmakers be allowed to legislate on laws that do not have a sunset clause? Sunshine laws work well because they give us enough time to judge the effects of the law in question. If we don’t like what it does, we simply let it expire. But again, it is not as easy as it seems. Different interests drive legislator’s agenda; for e.g. outsourcing bills may not be affected by perceived job loss of your constituents but rather by the vested interest of a local company that fears competition.