ooooooooo
Famous ... interesting.
However, being one of those system guys (mentioned by UT in a different thread) I find a logical inconsistency in your proposition. Should we have, forever, a rule (a potent rule--a Constitutional amendment) that says we have to periodically revisit the need for a rule? What about this amendment? What about pre-existing laws? What about the Constitution itself? *boom* my head just exploded.
Seriously though, let's leave aside for a moment the level at which you suggest this rule be established. The basic idea of "Hey, is this still working?" is solid gold. Putting new rules into place with a built in expiration date has strong appeal, especially given that our government shows a FAR STRONGER tendency toward accretion than it does toward erosion. This is one way growth happens, and that's ok. Another way we deal with the aspects of government that no longer apply is that it's no longer obeyed or enforced. Though I am drawing a blank (understandable, since my point is we ignore them) in an effort to find a good example, sometimes laws just die, sink to the bottom and transmorgrify into bedrock. That's ok too.
But sometimes the situation changes and these bedrock pieces become hazards to navigation. I have heard attempts to characterize different networks across the country as information services, and not communication networks and are thereby exempt from some rule or other. I don't know the details just now, my point is that sometimes old and busted laws just die away, sometimes they present a problem.
You've made an excellent suggestion. Thanks.