5 ms·

> I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. There are entire books written filled with silly, outdated, or absurd laws and regulations (both feder

by Alupis 10y ago

> I'd actually be surprised if there were many of those. There are entire books written filled with silly, outdated, or absurd laws and regulations (both federal and state). Here's just a taste[1]: > 18 USC §1382 & 32 CFR §636.28(g)(iv) make it a federal crime to ride a moped into Fort Stewart without wearing long trousers. > 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) make it a crime to wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fish-washing faucet, in a national forest. > 21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d) make it a crime to sell "Turkey Ham" as "Ham Turkey" or with the words "Turkey" and "Ham" in different fonts > 18 USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC. [1] http://www.freedomworks.org/content/19-ridiculous-federal-criminal-laws-and-regulations http://www.freedomworks.org/content/19-ridiculous-federal-cr...

ccallebs 10y ago
> 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) That should absolutely still be on the books. You'd have people cleaning fish in bathrooms.
- geofft 10y ago
  It's also an inaccurate summary: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.16 "The following are prohibited: (c) Cleaning or washing any personal property, fish, animal, or food, or bathing or washing at a hydrant or water faucet not provided for that purpose." This is the sort of thing that would just be a normal rule, in a contract or something, in a privately-managed park. For a federal park, it's perfectly reasonable for it to just be a federal law. You could also imagine a world where it's simply illegal to be in a federal park without signing a contract with the government, which would get these sorts of things out of the CFR, but that seems like it would be worse for the American people at zero benefit. And personally, I'd still call things in those contracts "federal regulations". You could also imagine a world where national parks become privatized.
- olalonde 10y ago
  I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but in case you're not, the question is not whether it should be forbidden (e.g. by park rules) to "wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fish-washing faucet, in a national forest" but whether there should be a law that makes such thing a federal crime.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    How can something be forbidden in a national forest other than making it a federal crime?
    - olalonde 10y ago
      Putting "Do not wash fish in faucet" signs up would probably go a long way. If the problem gets completely out of hand, make it a civil offense that carries a fine.
      - tptacek 10y ago
        According to 16 USC 551, a fine is indeed what you're likely to get for violating this regulation. The issue here is that the statute authorizing criminal penalties covers a whole range of national park regulations, some of which clearly merit stiff penalties, and some of which are just about washing fish safely.
        olalonde 10y ago
        But is it a "crime" (one that gets you a criminal record) as opposed to something like a parking ticket? This is what I thought we were arguing about but IANAL and might have misunderstood what OP meant.
        rayiner 10y ago
        It's a misdemeanor and gets you a criminal record. But so does a speeding ticket in states like Maryland or Georgia where all moving violations are misdemeaors.
geofft 10y ago
> 21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d) make it a crime to sell "Turkey Ham" as "Ham Turkey" or with the words "Turkey" and "Ham" in different fonts Here's the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.171 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.171 This is one of a large number of sections of the law that define what food products mean, for every food product on the market, and lead to a consistent UX at markets. It's not like someone passed the Turkey Ham Font Sizes Act of 1947 or something. It's these sorts of laws that prevent people from labeling, e.g., high-fructose corn syrup as "corn sugar". http://corn.org/facts-about-the-cra-petition-on-corn-sugar/ http://corn.org/facts-about-the-cra-petition-on-corn-sugar/ Trump has complained about "the FDA Food Police, which dictate how the federal government expects farmers to produce fruits and vegetables and even dictates the nutritional content of dog food." So, expect to see corn sugar in your sodas as soon as a new federal regulation gets passed. And something else, as soon as people figure out what "corn sugar" is.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I'm not sure why I'm meant to be alarmed by "corn sugar". Sucrose is extremely unhealthy for you in the quantities consumed in naturally sweetened soda. High fructose corn syrup is "high in fructose" relative to corn syrup, not to sugar, which is itself naturally high in fructose. More important context for the "ham" law is that the criminal penalty statute they're citing is actually meant to pair with this offenses statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/458 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/458 ... it captures a bunch of other regulations by reference, including labeling laws, but that doesn't mean someone passed a law saying it should be a federal crime to use the wrong font for ham.
  - geofft 10y ago
    It's a euphemism for HFCS, which is a name that consumers have slowly come to recognize, independent of the validity of either the phrases "high-fructose corn syrup" or "corn sugar". Without regulation, there's nothing preventing a euphemism treadmill for products that consumers don't want. (Whether consumers are correct to not want HFCS is tangential, since all I'm arguing is that consistent labeling is a good thing for the law to be enforcing in the general case, but for my own edification - I thought that HFCS was strictly worse than sugar, which is pretty bad; is it equal to / better than sugar?)
eli 10y ago
Washington DC's unique status means that federal law governs what would otherwise be a city ordinance any other place in America.
rayiner 10y ago
That source uses "federal crime" to make it sound extra scary. These are misdemeanors, like speeding or red light tickets in many states.
rayiner 10y ago
That source uses "federal crime" to make it sound extra scary. These are misdemeanors, like speeding or red light tickets in many states.
akiselev 10y ago
I keep seeing this mistake made over and over again. Regulations are not laws like the above, which are written by the legislature. The vast majority of regulations are written by experts in the relevant fields working for agencies in the executive branch. The legislature grants regulatory agencies jurisdiction and provides general guidance/intent but the most of the specifics are left to the regulatory body to decide. The job of the SEC, for example, is to provide a framework for the public to safetly invest in and own parts of corporations while providing qualified investors more freedom to invest in riskier ventures. The SEC decides what financial disclosures best fulfill its job requirements and imposes fines on violators. However, the laws that actually punish executives for breaking SEC rules are written by Congress and the courts are the last step that decides whether Congress or the agency are overstepping their bounds. Regulations as a landscape change much faster than laws and are consolidated all the time so there's a lot less cruft than the rest of our legal code would lead you to believe.
- tptacek 10y ago
  I think that's why they cite both the authorizing statute, which creates criminal penalties for violating regulations, and the regulations themselves.
  - akiselev 10y ago
    You're right, I read "USC section ..." and skipped to the description. Should have posted my rant elsewhere in the topic :) Still though, I think it's helpful to point out that the legal nature of regulations allows them to move faster and reduce internal complexity while the legal code is mostly append only.
psyc 10y ago
I'm just shaking my head at all the Hacker News armchair law professors who fervently believe each and every one of these is critical to the functioning of civilized society. And that's why we have so much red tape. Apparently there's a type of person who can't abide not having all possible minutia of life legislated.
- jkestner 10y ago
  Shaking my head at nerds who believe that this administration will agree with them on which statutes should be eliminated.
- geofft 10y ago
  Heh. I'd have thought the armchair law professors are the ones claiming that large portions of US law are mistakes, not the ones saying that things are the way they are for good reason. Also, I don't think anyone is saying that they're critical to the functioning of civilized society, just that they're not ridiculous and outdated, and that being truthful about the topic of discussion is important in a discussion. We can, and should, debate whether they're needed! But we first need to understand what arguments there are in favor of keeping them.

by Alupis 10y ago

ccallebs 10y ago

> 16 USC §551 & 36 CFR §261.16(c) That should absolutely still be on the books. You'd have people cleaning fish in bathrooms.

geofft 10y ago
It's also an inaccurate summary: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.16 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/261.16 "The following are prohibited: (c) Cleaning or washing any personal property, fish, animal, or food, or bathing or washing at a hydrant or water faucet not provided for that purpose." This is the sort of thing that would just be a normal rule, in a contract or something, in a privately-managed park. For a federal park, it's perfectly reasonable for it to just be a federal law. You could also imagine a world where it's simply illegal to be in a federal park without signing a contract with the government, which would get these sorts of things out of the CFR, but that seems like it would be worse for the American people at zero benefit. And personally, I'd still call things in those contracts "federal regulations". You could also imagine a world where national parks become privatized.
olalonde 10y ago
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic but in case you're not, the question is not whether it should be forbidden (e.g. by park rules) to "wash a fish at a faucet if it's not a fish-washing faucet, in a national forest" but whether there should be a law that makes such thing a federal crime.
- mikeash 10y ago
  How can something be forbidden in a national forest other than making it a federal crime?
  - olalonde 10y ago
    Putting "Do not wash fish in faucet" signs up would probably go a long way. If the problem gets completely out of hand, make it a civil offense that carries a fine.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      According to 16 USC 551, a fine is indeed what you're likely to get for violating this regulation. The issue here is that the statute authorizing criminal penalties covers a whole range of national park regulations, some of which clearly merit stiff penalties, and some of which are just about washing fish safely.
      - olalonde 10y ago
        But is it a "crime" (one that gets you a criminal record) as opposed to something like a parking ticket? This is what I thought we were arguing about but IANAL and might have misunderstood what OP meant.
        rayiner 10y ago
        It's a misdemeanor and gets you a criminal record. But so does a speeding ticket in states like Maryland or Georgia where all moving violations are misdemeaors.

geofft 10y ago

> 21 USC §461 & 9 CFR §381.171(d) make it a crime to sell "Turkey Ham" as "Ham Turkey" or with the words "Turkey" and "Ham" in different fonts Here's the law: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.171 https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/9/381.171 This is one of a large number of sections of the law that define what food products mean, for every food product on the market, and lead to a consistent UX at markets. It's not like someone passed the Turkey Ham Font Sizes Act of 1947 or something. It's these sorts of laws that prevent people from labeling, e.g., high-fructose corn syrup as "corn sugar". http://corn.org/facts-about-the-cra-petition-on-corn-sugar/ http://corn.org/facts-about-the-cra-petition-on-corn-sugar/ Trump has complained about "the FDA Food Police, which dictate how the federal government expects farmers to produce fruits and vegetables and even dictates the nutritional content of dog food." So, expect to see corn sugar in your sodas as soon as a new federal regulation gets passed. And something else, as soon as people figure out what "corn sugar" is.

tptacek 10y ago
I'm not sure why I'm meant to be alarmed by "corn sugar". Sucrose is extremely unhealthy for you in the quantities consumed in naturally sweetened soda. High fructose corn syrup is "high in fructose" relative to corn syrup, not to sugar, which is itself naturally high in fructose. More important context for the "ham" law is that the criminal penalty statute they're citing is actually meant to pair with this offenses statute: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/458 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/458 ... it captures a bunch of other regulations by reference, including labeling laws, but that doesn't mean someone passed a law saying it should be a federal crime to use the wrong font for ham.
- geofft 10y ago
  It's a euphemism for HFCS, which is a name that consumers have slowly come to recognize, independent of the validity of either the phrases "high-fructose corn syrup" or "corn sugar". Without regulation, there's nothing preventing a euphemism treadmill for products that consumers don't want. (Whether consumers are correct to not want HFCS is tangential, since all I'm arguing is that consistent labeling is a good thing for the law to be enforcing in the general case, but for my own edification - I thought that HFCS was strictly worse than sugar, which is pretty bad; is it equal to / better than sugar?)

eli 10y ago

Washington DC's unique status means that federal law governs what would otherwise be a city ordinance any other place in America.

rayiner 10y ago

That source uses "federal crime" to make it sound extra scary. These are misdemeanors, like speeding or red light tickets in many states.

rayiner 10y ago

That source uses "federal crime" to make it sound extra scary. These are misdemeanors, like speeding or red light tickets in many states.

akiselev 10y ago

I keep seeing this mistake made over and over again. Regulations are not laws like the above, which are written by the legislature. The vast majority of regulations are written by experts in the relevant fields working for agencies in the executive branch. The legislature grants regulatory agencies jurisdiction and provides general guidance/intent but the most of the specifics are left to the regulatory body to decide. The job of the SEC, for example, is to provide a framework for the public to safetly invest in and own parts of corporations while providing qualified investors more freedom to invest in riskier ventures. The SEC decides what financial disclosures best fulfill its job requirements and imposes fines on violators. However, the laws that actually punish executives for breaking SEC rules are written by Congress and the courts are the last step that decides whether Congress or the agency are overstepping their bounds. Regulations as a landscape change much faster than laws and are consolidated all the time so there's a lot less cruft than the rest of our legal code would lead you to believe.

tptacek 10y ago
I think that's why they cite both the authorizing statute, which creates criminal penalties for violating regulations, and the regulations themselves.
- akiselev 10y ago
  You're right, I read "USC section ..." and skipped to the description. Should have posted my rant elsewhere in the topic :) Still though, I think it's helpful to point out that the legal nature of regulations allows them to move faster and reduce internal complexity while the legal code is mostly append only.

psyc 10y ago

I'm just shaking my head at all the Hacker News armchair law professors who fervently believe each and every one of these is critical to the functioning of civilized society. And that's why we have so much red tape. Apparently there's a type of person who can't abide not having all possible minutia of life legislated.

jkestner 10y ago
Shaking my head at nerds who believe that this administration will agree with them on which statutes should be eliminated.
geofft 10y ago
Heh. I'd have thought the armchair law professors are the ones claiming that large portions of US law are mistakes, not the ones saying that things are the way they are for good reason. Also, I don't think anyone is saying that they're critical to the functioning of civilized society, just that they're not ridiculous and outdated, and that being truthful about the topic of discussion is important in a discussion. We can, and should, debate whether they're needed! But we first need to understand what arguments there are in favor of keeping them.