Clayton Cramer posts these neat little clauses from John Locke's 1669 Fundamental Constitution of Carolina:



79th. To avoid multiplicity of laws, which by degrees always change the right foundations of the original government, all acts of [the Carolina] Parliament whatsoever, in whatsoever form passed or enacted, shall at the end of a hundred years after their enacting, respectively cease, and determine of themselves, and without any repeal, become null and void, as if no such acts or laws had ever been made.



I love this idea: no law lasts more than 100 years unless you prove there's a reason to keep it around. Every hundred years there's a nasty amount of work to do, but it would keep things current.



80th. Since multiplicity of comments, as well as of laws, have great inconveniences, and serve on to obscure and perplex: all manner of comments and expositions, on any part of these Fundamental Constitutions, or on any part of the common or statute laws of Carolina are absolutely prohibited.



What, no law reviews? No law blogs? What would we talk about? Is this a backdoor "kill all the lawyers" clause?



But then - how could the court comment on the laws in an opinion? There's no exception here. Just think - all decisions would be summary. Then we could really use the Magic 8-Ball approach to practicing law. I've got a vision in my brain of the lawyers trying to pass this law without commentary, in order not to violate it. It goes something like the "he said it again" bit from "Knights who no longer say ni" sketch in Monty Python's Holy Grail.



Saw it on The Volokh Conspiracy