I’m not sure that just because legislation is born outside of the U.S. it is necessarily bad. It must follow the U.S. Constitution, of course, but words are words, regardless of who writes them. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that our Congress is predominantly useless. Especially Republicans in the Trump era. They could not pass legislation to require photo ID before voting or even to stop the Daylight Savings time change, which an overwhelming percentage of Americans support. They sat immobilized while Trump imposed tariffs on the world (which is Congress’ job!), declared war on a foreign country (which is Congress’ job!), kidnapped the president of Venezuela, and acted as judge, jury, and executioner for small boats traveling in international water.
Congress is useless, which is why Trump rules the world by Executive Order — which will be overturned on Day 1 by the next Democrat president, just like his first administration’s EOs were overturned by Biden.
Rand, this is the best objection in the thread, and you're right on the first point. Origin isn't the defect. I'd be refuting myself if it were: my own argument for the First Amendment runs back through Runnymede, Locke, Blackstone, and Magna Carta. The Constitution was substantially drafted from imported ideas. So "British" is not my claim, and I said so in the piece -- one can grant that anti-Muslim hatred is real, that children deserve protection online, and that AI carries genuine risk, and still insist on knowing who is writing the laws. The claim is disclosure, not provenance.
Where I'd push back is "words are words." Not because of who wrote them -- because of which legal system they were written for. A duty of care drafted for Westminster assumes parliamentary sovereignty, no First Amendment, no strict scrutiny, and a regulator empowered to weigh speech against harm by statute. Dropped into a U.S. code, those same words land in a system where that balancing is the specific thing a legislature is forbidden to do. The tell is in the New Jersey bill itself: it needs a First Amendment savings clause. You don't need a clause promising not to infringe the First Amendment if the text was drafted for a First Amendment jurisdiction. The savings clause is the seam where the transplant was stitched.
On "it must follow the Constitution, of course" -- agreed, but look at what that costs. California's design code, the 5Rights transplant, went to the Ninth Circuit; the court affirmed an injunction against the impact-assessment mandate on First Amendment grounds, then in 2026 held the challengers hadn't carried their burden against the rest. Four years of litigation, a partial win, the statute still standing -- and Maryland and Vermont had already copied the model before the first ruling came down. Constitutional review is a backstop, not a filter.
And your last point is the one I'm taking. Congress created the Office of Technology Assessment in 1972, funded it past $20 million a year, and killed it in 1995. A legislature that dismantles its own drafting and technical capacity will have its text supplied by whoever shows up with text already written. You're not offering an alternative explanation -- you're naming the cause. Outside drafting is what abdication looks like from the vendor's side.
I’m not sure that just because legislation is born outside of the U.S. it is necessarily bad. It must follow the U.S. Constitution, of course, but words are words, regardless of who writes them. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that our Congress is predominantly useless. Especially Republicans in the Trump era. They could not pass legislation to require photo ID before voting or even to stop the Daylight Savings time change, which an overwhelming percentage of Americans support. They sat immobilized while Trump imposed tariffs on the world (which is Congress’ job!), declared war on a foreign country (which is Congress’ job!), kidnapped the president of Venezuela, and acted as judge, jury, and executioner for small boats traveling in international water.
Congress is useless, which is why Trump rules the world by Executive Order — which will be overturned on Day 1 by the next Democrat president, just like his first administration’s EOs were overturned by Biden.
Rand, this is the best objection in the thread, and you're right on the first point. Origin isn't the defect. I'd be refuting myself if it were: my own argument for the First Amendment runs back through Runnymede, Locke, Blackstone, and Magna Carta. The Constitution was substantially drafted from imported ideas. So "British" is not my claim, and I said so in the piece -- one can grant that anti-Muslim hatred is real, that children deserve protection online, and that AI carries genuine risk, and still insist on knowing who is writing the laws. The claim is disclosure, not provenance.
Where I'd push back is "words are words." Not because of who wrote them -- because of which legal system they were written for. A duty of care drafted for Westminster assumes parliamentary sovereignty, no First Amendment, no strict scrutiny, and a regulator empowered to weigh speech against harm by statute. Dropped into a U.S. code, those same words land in a system where that balancing is the specific thing a legislature is forbidden to do. The tell is in the New Jersey bill itself: it needs a First Amendment savings clause. You don't need a clause promising not to infringe the First Amendment if the text was drafted for a First Amendment jurisdiction. The savings clause is the seam where the transplant was stitched.
On "it must follow the Constitution, of course" -- agreed, but look at what that costs. California's design code, the 5Rights transplant, went to the Ninth Circuit; the court affirmed an injunction against the impact-assessment mandate on First Amendment grounds, then in 2026 held the challengers hadn't carried their burden against the rest. Four years of litigation, a partial win, the statute still standing -- and Maryland and Vermont had already copied the model before the first ruling came down. Constitutional review is a backstop, not a filter.
I cover many of these issues in greater depth on www.Restorethe1st.com
And your last point is the one I'm taking. Congress created the Office of Technology Assessment in 1972, funded it past $20 million a year, and killed it in 1995. A legislature that dismantles its own drafting and technical capacity will have its text supplied by whoever shows up with text already written. You're not offering an alternative explanation -- you're naming the cause. Outside drafting is what abdication looks like from the vendor's side.
Thanks again for chiming in!