[sneak]

No. The laws don't expire; we are mostly ruled by laws that we were not in any way represented for.

Everyone who was of voting age who could have voted for senators who ratified the income tax amendment is dead now. There is no person now living under the sixteenth amendment that was involved in its passage.

None of us alive today were voting for congressional reps back in '33; correspondingly the securities act applying to us is not in any way related to representative democracy. It might as well be dictatorial edict for all of our involvement.

[dvt]

Are you trying to argue that, under your proposed system of laws, we would need to re-litigate (for example) murder or arson for every new generation? Seems a bit silly. Either way, precedent can be freely overturned, so the Securities Act isn't immutable. It's just that most people still think it's a good idea.

[sneak]

Most people aren't aware of securities regulation at all.

Note that I didn't propose any alternate system, I just pointed out that the majority of the laws we live under were not a result of our being represented in any way.

[johngladtj]

Yes, all laws should have expiration dates built in, and the more controversial the law is the shorter that expiration should be.

A law passed 51-49 should not persist after that legislative period has passed.

A law passed 100-0 may be reasonable to persist for 50 years.