it already takes 1 year to go to trial on a federal lawsuit

one law to rule them all

[Bad language is bad]

OMG!  I just realized that Flint got called both a crazy libertarian and a crazy big government guy within 2 posts of one another in reply to the exact same post.  I always love when that happens. 

How would this remove thousands of laws?

They're all laws which would eventually take effect. They're all laws which could then be challenged at that time.

How would this cause anyone to scramble to remove laws on the books? Laws on the books can already be challenged.

Yet ANOTHER non sequitur fallacy in action! You're an adult. Jesus Christ, think before you speak, let alone go on a crusade. What you're posting doesn't even make any sense.

Lawmakers are going to rush to revoke laws on the books (which can already be challenged) because of a statute which allows laws to be challenged before they're enacted? Hahahahha that's stupid! Good joke! I hope you were joking, right? Because that doesn't make any god damn sense. A child would be confused by how anyone could be dumb enough to think one follows the other.

Try harder. I'm bored.

And for a list of things you've ignored, because you really do seem that childish and oblivious:
1) What about the fact that we can already elect people with the agenda to reform such laws and agency overreaches? The people aren't good enough voters, they need more laws and trial lawyers to protect them? We're not a litigious enough society already?

You offer no comment.

2) What about the fact that this tasks courts with judging the theoretical, what might happen? Aren't they bad enough at making decisions of law based on facts? You want to give courts (and trial lawyers) even more power, to influence legislation based on predictions and not facts?

You offer no comment.

These questions make me a troll? They're illegitimate, but the ability to explain why magically escapes you.

Justinian there is a legal term called 'Standing'.

An example of Legal Standing is that you cannot yet sue the Obamacare Law if you in fact felt it would harm you. This is because, despite Universities ending coverage, despite increases in healthcare costs, despite tons of Federal money being spent, despite exemptions for favored people, and despite other issues you lack standing.

This standing burden is huge, it means that if they put a chemical plant next to you, waive all environmental checks despite evidence it will leak hazardous chemicals into your property you have no standing until the chemicals do come into your property. If my law happens you could sue with the knowledge it will happen thus stopping that Government Chemical plant from having that faulty equipment.

As a truck driver I know at least a dozen States with 'Anti-Idle Laws'. These laws tell me I cannot idle my truck (leave the engine running) when parked.

Some area's I have parked in have been as low as -15 degrees Faranheit. Some have been as high as 125 degrees. A semi truck parked in 75 degree weather with the sun unobscured can reach 115 degrees in less than 30 minutes a truck in 10 degree weather with the engine off will be unable to start the engine

As a driver I know these facts. I also know I have a undiagnosed body temperature regulating problem where I can sweat in a cooler and shiver in heat. I need a near costant temperature of 65 degrees to help best regulate my body temperature..

Many truck drivers are terrified of the law without knowing it is unenforcible. Enough police have pointed out the flaws and enough lawyers have inside the DA's office. However many truck drivers still do not know that.

If I had my way I could sue over this and end these laws (or get them rewritten so as to not be a life/safety issue). However I have no Standing. If California tickets me I can then sue California. But not the other States. I literally need a ticket in every State to end these laws.

This proposal would mean I could sue them all, and all at once, and end this horrible law which is currently causing pain and suffering for drivers.

Flint,

So you mean parties should be allowed to sue over a policy because it might theoretically damage them? If that's what you mean, then I'm behind it. Other countries follow that policy, and it works fine.

Kemp,

Obviously, you could only sue to terminate a practice because it would theoretically harm you, but not to receive damages.

Would one of our three legal beagles please educate the poor troll?

.... I have to agree with Kemp.

You mention Obamacare which has caused much damage but hasn't been implement yet.... what happens when the shoe is on the other foot.  Say a Governor of Wisconsin wants to cut union fat so he wants to cut benefits by 5%.  A cut in benefits makes people unmotivated, angry or even depressed - this immotional response could lead some to drinking problems, some who are currently living beyond there means could lose there house, some might even commit suicide or turn to crime to make up the difference.  The definition of you law means all union members in Wisconsin could sue saying that millions of people might kill themselves or any other doom and groom scenerio therefore the law can not be.

Not all laws are equally helpful, some are harmful.  Any proposed tax hike has negative impacts on those taxed - ergo those taxed could sue - hence no one would pay taxes.  On the other side of the coin, if the government cuts spending - those departments who have budget cut could show how the cut damages them - hence they could sue.....

To put it in IC terms without nw attack rules... I farm small people, IC makes a rule "You can't farm people under 35% of your NW".  I sue and show that by not allowing me to farm, my banker doesn't give me enough aid - therefore I can show fact that this rule is hurting me.  Does this make the rule bad?  Should I be allowed to sue/argue?  Don't we elect people to govern to make the decisions for the greater good because as individuals not every one will agree?

To trail back to Obamacare.... there is a solution to bad laws - its called elections.  We vote the right people into office in November than ObamaCare could go away.

A few other points.... all laws are damaging someone.  People do things that benefit them - when enough people dislike it -  A law is born.  An argument can be made that there is benefits to murder.  Tell me the world wouldn't be a better place if the cast of Jersey Shore wasn't placed in front of a firing squad?  Theoretically my daughter could watch that show and grow up acting like Snookie - that justifies me shooting Snookie - ergo by making murder illegal you are damaging me.

I agree - ridiculous example.  But the premise is true - most all laws could be shown to damage someone.

"No suicide is not a cause to sue, but lost wages, lost employment, benefits might be. Emotional harm over a balanced budget is by far no means, nor is a State being forced to cut back due to financial reality."

You can sue for anything.  I can sue my neighbor because I think his cat is dumb.  If your law was enacted I can show that Obamacare has f-ed me over due to what I now pay in medical insurance is jumping.  So.... tomorrow millions of citizens fill out a form to sue and hand it to the county clerk and some judge has to thumb though all those and sort out the "dumb cat" law suits from the "poisions being dumped in my back yard" from the "Obamacare" ones?  I can only imagine how long it will be before my court date, further more what happens if the first person who sues is an idiot and loses.... does the rest get thrown out or do millions of people each get a trail?   

And yet another point.... even with existing laws when you can show damage - it doesn't mean dick.  Take the "idle law" you mentioned.  If you get a ticket for breaking it or if your truck breaks down because of it.... the judge doesn't care.  A law is a law.  Being able to show damage prior to it being made a law doesn't take the power away from local, state or federal officals from making and inacting laws.

You petition to overturn dumb laws.  You elect people who you believe will make the lease-dumb laws.  If a dumb law comes up for a vote, you show up at that townhall or you call your congressman.