Today I was listening to the radio and they was a brief news item about an essay contest called "There Ought To Be A Law." The story was that the winning essay's subject was introduced in the state's legislature. What confuses me is that I thought the state this bill was introduced into was Pennsylvania but it appears the winning essay in question was from Ohio. Basically, this law was to require dogs be restrained in cars. The essay was written by a girl named Rachel Stevenson, a home-schooled student from Fairlawn, Ohio. Score one for non-public education.
Given that most kids are not wise in the ways of government, I'm sure Rachel thinks that a law like that is a good thing to make pets safer. And it would do just that. It's obvious she's seen the effect mandatory seat belt laws have on people.
But, here's my problem with the idea of the essay contest (sponsored, naturally, by the Ohio Bar Association.) I think there should be equal weight given to the proposition that an existing law should be repealed. For example, growing up in Ohio, I remember that all the time I was growing up the legal drinking age was 18 - until a month before my 18th birthday, when they raised it to 19. (No, I was not happy about that!) Now, my recollection on this is a bit hazy, but either there was a statewide vote for establishing 19 as the drinking age or against making it 21. Whichever way it worked, less than a year later the Ohio Legislature was forced by the federal government to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose their federal highway funds.
Those are the kind of laws that should be repealed, especially when they are contradictory to the expressed will of the people at the ballot box. Immediately they should repeal seat belt laws, motorcycle helmet laws, and and other laws granted solely to ensure continued receipt of federal funds (including No Child Left Behind.) Obviously a companion bill in Congress would have to put an end to mandates like these or it should be handled in the budget somehow.
Then if Maryland wants to continue being a nanny state after the withdrawal of the stick of losing federal funds, it's the fault of the liberals in Annapolis and they can't point to DC and tell us that the (so-called) Free State's hands were tied.
Much like Orwell's "Newspeak", I'd like to see the number of laws shrink as time goes on, devolving back to principles found in the Constitution. Fewer laws = greater individual freedom.
