Jefferson himself explained why it is so difficult to keep the law up to date, in the course of rejecting the argument that"the succeeding generationI]s.. power [to] repeal"a provision"leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only. "The power to repeal a law does not protect a later generation from the impositions of an earlier generation ITThe power of repeal is not an equivalent [to mandatory expiration] It might indeed be if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative propostion Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interest of their practical man that a law of limited duration is much more very constituents; and other impediments arise so as to manageable than one which needs a repeal These familiar problems of legislative intertia and public choice will plague efforts to replace an expired law with something reflecting the current generations views. Perhaps even after much more than Jeffersons 19 years, a majority of the society--composed of some survivors of the older generation that voted on the law and some members of the new generation that did not-want the old law to continue in effect. Or perhaps the view of the new majority is that the law should be modified, but not wiped from the books. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, must be viewed today as the product of an earlier generation, and not just in a chronological sense. But simply"sunsetting "the Act-reverting to the pre- 1964 status quo-would surely be less in keeping with the current generations views than the 1964 Act is Given the problems Jefferson identified with relying on repeals, we could not view the failure to reenact the old law as a reliable indication that a current majority rejects it. And,9 Jefferson himself explained why it is so difficult to keep the law up to date, in the course of rejecting the argument that “the succeeding generation[’]s . . . power [to] repeal” a provision “leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to 19 years only.” The power to repeal a law does not protect a later generation from the impositions of an earlier generation: [T]he power of repeal is not an equivalent [to mandatory expiration]. It might indeed be if every form of government were so perfectly contrived that the will of the majority could always be obtained fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves. Their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative propostion. Factions get possession of the public councils. Bribery corrupts them. Personal interests lead them astray from the general interest of their constituents; and other impediments arise so as to prove to every practical man that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs a repeal. These familiar problems of legislative intertia and public choice will plague efforts to replace an expired law with something reflecting the current generation’s views. Perhaps even after much more than Jefferson’s 19 years, a majority of the society—composed of some survivors of the older generation that voted on the law and some members of the new generation that did not—want the old law to continue in effect. Or perhaps the view of the new majority is that the law should be modified, but not wiped from the books. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, for example, must be viewed today as the product of an earlier generation, and not just in a chronological sense. But simply “sunsetting” the Act—reverting to the pre- 1964 status quo—would surely be less in keeping with the current generation’s views than the 1964 Act is. Given the problems Jefferson identified with relying on repeals, we could not view the failure to reenact the old law as a reliable indication that a current majority rejects it. And