4 ms·

I have this discussion with friends frequently. For instance, it is illegal to throw a frisbee on a beach in Los Angeles county(1). If you are ticketed, the f

by gsibble 14y ago

I have this discussion with friends frequently. For instance, it is illegal to throw a frisbee on a beach in Los Angeles county(1). If you are ticketed, the fine is $1,000. Now....how many tourists going to the beach are going to know that? How many would ever bother to check? Sure, signs could help, but does everyone stop and read the 12-15 rules on any beach/pool signs? Even more broadly, were we, as citizens with the right to free travel on public property, notified of the various laws we are subject to while passing in and out of various jurisdictions? Are we notified of the daily changes made to them? Are we given an opportunity to leave said jurisdictions when informed of laws to which we don't want to be subjected? How are we, as citizens, supposed to understand the laws we are required to follow when we aren't directly provided with them or notified of any changes? In the private world, there are very strict rules about this. You have to explicitly agree to terms of service before utilizing products, companies must record your agreement, and they must notify you (or provide you with a new copy) if those terms change. (The South Park episode regarding the iTunes EULA made an excellent parody of this fact). The whole system is getting completely ridiculous and it deserves much closer attention and more publicity. Sources: (1): http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/09/los-angeles-oks-1000-fine-for-throwing-frisbees-footballs-at-the-beach/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/02/09/los-angeles-oks-1...

learc83 14y ago
The shear amount of laws has made it impossible to be fully versed on all the things you can and can't do. It seems something like mandatory sunset provisions are the only possible solution as our legal system accumulates more and more cruft. Eventually there will be so many laws that we will cease to be a nation under the rule of law, because the only thing that will matter is prosecutorial discretion.
- tsotha 14y ago
  >Eventually there will be so many laws that we will cease to be a nation under the rule of law, because the only thing that will matter is prosecutorial discretion. We are long past that point, which is the reason for the post title (and the book from which it's drawn). Even the lawyers don't understand areas of the law that are outside their own narrow specialty. The root of the problem is the federalization of criminal law. People used to say "Don't make a federal case out of it!" because that used to mean something - federal cases were for the Al Capones of the world and people who interfered with the mail. Over the years Congress (with the acquiescence of the courts) has essentially shed any constitutional limits on its power. Federal law now applies everywhere (in the world) and to everything. The solution isn't mandatory sunset provisions - lots of laws have sunset provisions already and they're just routinely extended. The solution is a federal government that's limited to the powers delineated in its charter. That means, for example, you could have a federal law against importation and transport of drugs across state line, but possession and sale could only be regulated at the state level. Same with guns, speed limits, "assault weapons", currency transactions, and damn near everything else against federal law. As Joe Citizen you would know that things you did wholly inside your state couldn't be illegal under federal law outside of a few narrow areas. The way it works now is everyone is a felon, and if the feds want you they can throw a hundred minor charges at you that all carry 3-5 years, so you're looking at 500 years in jail... unless you take a plea. Innocent or guilty you take the plea. God only knows how many innocent people are rotting in jail because they didn't want to risk life in prison over something relatively minor.
  - csense 14y ago
    > Congress...has shed...constitutional limits > things you did wholly inside your state These two statements are related. Congress has the Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. That one little phrase in the Constitution is mostly responsible for the federal government's power grab over the last 100 years or so. Unless you have your own fully self-sufficient farm and solar plant, and don't have a telephone, TV or Internet service, you're probably consuming goods and services that are made in other states and interacting with companies based in other states. Since the federal government has the power to regulate those transactions, it can intrude into the corner of your lives. Also, the amendment giving the federal government the power to collect income tax was another serious mistake. It was sold to voters as a "temporary" measure to pay the country's debts from either the Civil War or World War I. Spoiler: It wasn't temporary. If the government had never had the revenue to engage in the massive spending of the last century, the current fiscal mess wouldn't be happening.
    - greenyoda 14y ago
      Not even a self-sufficient farm is immune from the federal government, as was decided in Wickard v. Filburn[1]: "Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
      - tsotha 14y ago
        Yep, Wickard was where it really went off the rails. And then it got even sillier when the court decided in Raich that if you grow a pot plant in your closet purely for personal consumption Congress has the power to regulate it as interstate commerce. They didn't even have the flimsy fig leaf they had in Wickard.
- ap22213 14y ago
  That's bad in itself. But, worse - most laws as written in federal and state codes aren't even the actual laws. The real laws are what my lawyer friends call the 'case law' - the historical precedence and rules of courts. And, case law is completely impractical for any average citizen to even find, let alone read and understand. I like to ask these friends the provocative question, "so, when are you guys going to make the laws easier for average people to understand." And, they facetiously reply, "What, you want us out of a job?" And, they're right. There is no incentive for anyone in the legal hierarchy to make laws more accessible. Maybe our legislatures can fix it. But, we Americans consistently elect into office more lawyers. As a software development analogy, that's like hiring programmers to decide the features and interfaces of the systems that they will get paid to maintain. And, there's a reason that good software depends on people of different disciplines (designers, product managers, subject matter experts) coming together.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
vedllun 14y ago
Amusingly, the very regulation you cite is being cited on the basis of people misunderstanding a 40 year old regulation being loosened... http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/la-county-updating-beach-regulations/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/la-county-updating...
- gsibble 14y ago
  I know. Hilarious, isn't it?
gsibble 14y ago
PS: One idea I've had is to create an iPhone app that would allow you to see laws that apply to you at your current location. You could favorite issues you were concerned with (my personal examples are jaywalking, talking on a cell while driving, and turning right on red) and quickly see what the local rules are. It would be crowdsourced so that the entire community can contribute. But alas, so many ideas, so little time.
- jbl 14y ago
  I love this idea! The question is, is the law written in such a way that you could delineate the geographic and contextual boundaries to which it applies? I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not so clear. I'd love to be proven wrong, though!
  - gsibble 14y ago
    Thanks! In the geocoding products I have used, it's pretty specific about where you are. In a certain city/town, in a certain county, in a certain state, in a certain country. As long as the geocoding is accurate and you can properly assign laws to each level (ie. this law for this town) then it should work fine.
  - dllthomas 14y ago
    For local ordinances and state laws, geographic boundaries in which they could apply is fairly straightforward. Specific context (beach, club, &c) would be harder, to say the least.

by gsibble 14y ago

learc83 14y ago

The shear amount of laws has made it impossible to be fully versed on all the things you can and can't do. It seems something like mandatory sunset provisions are the only possible solution as our legal system accumulates more and more cruft. Eventually there will be so many laws that we will cease to be a nation under the rule of law, because the only thing that will matter is prosecutorial discretion.

tsotha 14y ago
>Eventually there will be so many laws that we will cease to be a nation under the rule of law, because the only thing that will matter is prosecutorial discretion. We are long past that point, which is the reason for the post title (and the book from which it's drawn). Even the lawyers don't understand areas of the law that are outside their own narrow specialty. The root of the problem is the federalization of criminal law. People used to say "Don't make a federal case out of it!" because that used to mean something - federal cases were for the Al Capones of the world and people who interfered with the mail. Over the years Congress (with the acquiescence of the courts) has essentially shed any constitutional limits on its power. Federal law now applies everywhere (in the world) and to everything. The solution isn't mandatory sunset provisions - lots of laws have sunset provisions already and they're just routinely extended. The solution is a federal government that's limited to the powers delineated in its charter. That means, for example, you could have a federal law against importation and transport of drugs across state line, but possession and sale could only be regulated at the state level. Same with guns, speed limits, "assault weapons", currency transactions, and damn near everything else against federal law. As Joe Citizen you would know that things you did wholly inside your state couldn't be illegal under federal law outside of a few narrow areas. The way it works now is everyone is a felon, and if the feds want you they can throw a hundred minor charges at you that all carry 3-5 years, so you're looking at 500 years in jail... unless you take a plea. Innocent or guilty you take the plea. God only knows how many innocent people are rotting in jail because they didn't want to risk life in prison over something relatively minor.
- csense 14y ago
  > Congress...has shed...constitutional limits > things you did wholly inside your state These two statements are related. Congress has the Constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. That one little phrase in the Constitution is mostly responsible for the federal government's power grab over the last 100 years or so. Unless you have your own fully self-sufficient farm and solar plant, and don't have a telephone, TV or Internet service, you're probably consuming goods and services that are made in other states and interacting with companies based in other states. Since the federal government has the power to regulate those transactions, it can intrude into the corner of your lives. Also, the amendment giving the federal government the power to collect income tax was another serious mistake. It was sold to voters as a "temporary" measure to pay the country's debts from either the Civil War or World War I. Spoiler: It wasn't temporary. If the government had never had the revenue to engage in the massive spending of the last century, the current fiscal mess wouldn't be happening.
  - greenyoda 14y ago
    Not even a self-sufficient farm is immune from the federal government, as was decided in Wickard v. Filburn[1]: "Filburn argued that since the excess wheat he produced was intended solely for home consumption it could not be regulated through the interstate Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, reasoning that if Filburn had not used home-grown wheat he would have had to buy wheat on the open market. This effect on interstate commerce, the Court reasoned, may not be substantial from the actions of Filburn alone but through the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn its effect would certainly become substantial. Therefore Congress could regulate wholly intrastate, non-commercial activity if such activity, viewed in the aggregate, would have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, even if the individual effects are trivial." [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
    - tsotha 14y ago
      Yep, Wickard was where it really went off the rails. And then it got even sillier when the court decided in Raich that if you grow a pot plant in your closet purely for personal consumption Congress has the power to regulate it as interstate commerce. They didn't even have the flimsy fig leaf they had in Wickard.
ap22213 14y ago
That's bad in itself. But, worse - most laws as written in federal and state codes aren't even the actual laws. The real laws are what my lawyer friends call the 'case law' - the historical precedence and rules of courts. And, case law is completely impractical for any average citizen to even find, let alone read and understand. I like to ask these friends the provocative question, "so, when are you guys going to make the laws easier for average people to understand." And, they facetiously reply, "What, you want us out of a job?" And, they're right. There is no incentive for anyone in the legal hierarchy to make laws more accessible. Maybe our legislatures can fix it. But, we Americans consistently elect into office more lawyers. As a software development analogy, that's like hiring programmers to decide the features and interfaces of the systems that they will get paid to maintain. And, there's a reason that good software depends on people of different disciplines (designers, product managers, subject matter experts) coming together.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

vedllun 14y ago

Amusingly, the very regulation you cite is being cited on the basis of people misunderstanding a 40 year old regulation being loosened... http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/la-county-updating-beach-regulations/ http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/14/la-county-updating...

gsibble 14y ago
I know. Hilarious, isn't it?

gsibble 14y ago

PS: One idea I've had is to create an iPhone app that would allow you to see laws that apply to you at your current location. You could favorite issues you were concerned with (my personal examples are jaywalking, talking on a cell while driving, and turning right on red) and quickly see what the local rules are. It would be crowdsourced so that the entire community can contribute. But alas, so many ideas, so little time.

jbl 14y ago
I love this idea! The question is, is the law written in such a way that you could delineate the geographic and contextual boundaries to which it applies? I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not so clear. I'd love to be proven wrong, though!
- gsibble 14y ago
  Thanks! In the geocoding products I have used, it's pretty specific about where you are. In a certain city/town, in a certain county, in a certain state, in a certain country. As long as the geocoding is accurate and you can properly assign laws to each level (ie. this law for this town) then it should work fine.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  For local ordinances and state laws, geographic boundaries in which they could apply is fairly straightforward. Specific context (beach, club, &c) would be harder, to say the least.