Evolution of Government

I believe that any rule can be abused. For example, one of the rules that is frequently applied here is "first come first serve." It can be fair if everyone has an equal opportunity to arrive first; it can be abused by setting bylaws for when service opens to suit a specific group of people or by informing a selected group of people before anyone else of when and where to be in order to give them an advantage in being first.

I believe that have abused our separation of church and state, which is a rule, by passing laws that enforce specific values from one religion and pretending they are for a secular purpose.

Our government has rules about passing laws, and these have also been abused. We need, loosely speaking, a majority vote to approve laws. Yet sometimes we approve laws we do not want because some legislator abuses the system by adding self-serving portions to a law that he or she knows the majority of other legislators want to pass in a hurry. They will approve the law after verifying that their own concerns are addressed, and they are under pressure not to delay the passing of the law in order to question someone else's self-serving portions of it.  Is this a flaw? Surely, in a national legislature, only laws that serve the best interests of the entire nation should be approved.  Any law that serves only a small part of the nation, or worse yet, the individual political interests of the legislator, should be discussed openly and approved or disapproved directly by the majority.  Is it possible to fix this flaw in our system?

Should we require our legislature to vote not just on an entire bill, but on each provision? Voting on each paragraph would probably just result in self-serving legislation added as unrelated sentences to a key paragraph. Voting on each sentence would be cumbersome. Often times an idea or a system needs many sentences and paragraphs to be fully described, and allowing legislature to approve just parts of an idea or proposed system may result in utter ineffectiveness. On the other hand, we have passed laws that are amendments to existing laws. Can we demand a review of all passed legislation with a purpose to strip out self-serving portions?  Or would that undermine legitimate compromises that may have been made in order to approve the law originally?

Clearly every law should have a preamble stating its intent, and the context in which it is being passed. This will help the public evaluate the contents of the law to identify parts that are unrelated to the approved intent (porkbarrel), and it will help future generations understand when they need to modify the law or cancel it.