America has a crime problem: We treat criminal laws as if they were terms of service on a website — blindly agreeing and praying we’ll never need to know what they say. But it isn’t ordinary Americans who do the clicking; Congress clicks for us.
Worse, most legislators are as blind to what’s inside the laws they enact, or how to enforce them, as your average iTunes user clicking “Yes” on the latest Apple user agreement.
Consider a crime we keep hearing about — obstruction of justice. During his confirmation hearings, Attorney General William Barr sparred with senators about the meaning of the word “corruptly” as it’s used in the obstruction statutes.
What the Data Actually Says About Abortion and Women’s Health
California’s New Congressional Maps Favoring Dems Could Be Struck Down by the Supreme Court: Report
Breaking: OJ Simpson Witness and LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman Dead at 74
Report: Immigrants Are Voluntarily Leaving US in Record Numbers Under Trump
DC Bar lawyer withdraws from Ed Martin disciplinary case after partisan posts surface
Hegseth unleashes on Massie in GOP primary showdown against Trump-backed Navy SEAL vet
Austin shooting suspect named, timeline of terror revealed after teens’ alleged 28-hour, 12-attack rampage
Mark Fuhrman, detective at center of OJ Simpson murder trial, dead at 74
Senate Republicans confirm nearly 50 of Trump’s picks for energy, land management
WATCH: Mamdani bashed for going ‘full deranged marxist’ with rip on famous Ronald Reagan line
Breaking: 2 Shooters at California Islamic Center Neutralized – Multiple Causalities Confirmed
Trump Sends First of Its Kind Message to ‘Rededicate 250’ Attendees Who Flooded the National Mall to Recommit America to God
Skid Row election scheme allegedly fueled by pocket-change payoffs busted by Trump DOJ
WATCH: Eye-popping illegal immigration stat prompts senator’s demand to ‘redouble’ deportations
Senate Republican threatens to derail ICE, Border Patrol package over Trump’s billion-dollar request
It was just one word, concerning one kind of crime, and yet there was sharp disagreement between the people writing laws and the man who would soon be enforcing them. Special counsel Robert Mueller spent 182 pages analyzing the president’s conduct under those same statutes, only to leave the ultimate question unresolved. When Barr returned for Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, Sen. Dianne Feinstein seemed flummoxed when he explained that instructing someone to lie isn’t necessarily a crime.
For answers, many have turned to the cavalcade of legal analysts on cable news declaring assuredly that the president definitely had, or definitely hadn’t, committed obstruction. Those watching at home had to wonder: Shouldn’t there be an actual answer? Isn’t everyone looking at the same law? Surely America’s most telegenic legal minds and seasoned government officials can definitively answer the binary question of whether the president obstructed justice. But they haven’t. Now some are calling on Congress to answer it in impeachment proceedings.
This tiresome exercise could be undertaken with countless other federal laws. Is it a crime to remove a migratory bird that has taken up roost in your house? It depends. Can you cut the tag off a mattress? Again, it depends. What does it depend on? Well, that depends too. Lawyers are conditioned to accept this, but it’s no less unsettling that, even when the facts are clear, lawmakers, law enforcers, judges and lawyers still can’t agree on what the law itself makes a crime.
What the Data Actually Says About Abortion and Women’s Health
California’s New Congressional Maps Favoring Dems Could Be Struck Down by the Supreme Court: Report
Breaking: OJ Simpson Witness and LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman Dead at 74
Report: Immigrants Are Voluntarily Leaving US in Record Numbers Under Trump
DC Bar lawyer withdraws from Ed Martin disciplinary case after partisan posts surface
Hegseth unleashes on Massie in GOP primary showdown against Trump-backed Navy SEAL vet
Austin shooting suspect named, timeline of terror revealed after teens’ alleged 28-hour, 12-attack rampage
Mark Fuhrman, detective at center of OJ Simpson murder trial, dead at 74
Senate Republicans confirm nearly 50 of Trump’s picks for energy, land management
WATCH: Mamdani bashed for going ‘full deranged marxist’ with rip on famous Ronald Reagan line
Breaking: 2 Shooters at California Islamic Center Neutralized – Multiple Causalities Confirmed
Trump Sends First of Its Kind Message to ‘Rededicate 250’ Attendees Who Flooded the National Mall to Recommit America to God
Skid Row election scheme allegedly fueled by pocket-change payoffs busted by Trump DOJ
WATCH: Eye-popping illegal immigration stat prompts senator’s demand to ‘redouble’ deportations
Senate Republican threatens to derail ICE, Border Patrol package over Trump’s billion-dollar request
It’s not just a federal problem. Nor is it an exclusively political one. The same day that the special counsel released his report, the highest court in the state of Washington issued an evenly split opinion concerning that state’s own obstruction statute. In it, eight justices of the Washington Supreme Court couldn’t agree whether a man’s refusal to open his door for police constituted a crime. There was no real dispute about the facts. There was a statute written in black and white. Yet the court split 4-4.
This kind of ambiguity is a problem for an executive branch charged with enforcing laws and a judiciary that applies them. It may soon become a very public problem for a Congress trying its hand at both. Mostly, however, it threatens all of us who are presumed to know the law, required to comply with it and barred from arguing ignorance of the law as an excuse.
If Congress really is about to embark on impeachment, perhaps lawmakers will learn a valuable lesson in the process. Let them slog through the muck of their own criminal statutes. Let them display how even they can’t agree on what the text of the law means. Then let America be reminded that we had better follow the untold thousands of laws written by these people or go to prison.
What the Data Actually Says About Abortion and Women’s Health
California’s New Congressional Maps Favoring Dems Could Be Struck Down by the Supreme Court: Report
Breaking: OJ Simpson Witness and LAPD Detective Mark Fuhrman Dead at 74
Report: Immigrants Are Voluntarily Leaving US in Record Numbers Under Trump
DC Bar lawyer withdraws from Ed Martin disciplinary case after partisan posts surface
Hegseth unleashes on Massie in GOP primary showdown against Trump-backed Navy SEAL vet
Austin shooting suspect named, timeline of terror revealed after teens’ alleged 28-hour, 12-attack rampage
Mark Fuhrman, detective at center of OJ Simpson murder trial, dead at 74
Senate Republicans confirm nearly 50 of Trump’s picks for energy, land management
WATCH: Mamdani bashed for going ‘full deranged marxist’ with rip on famous Ronald Reagan line
Breaking: 2 Shooters at California Islamic Center Neutralized – Multiple Causalities Confirmed
Trump Sends First of Its Kind Message to ‘Rededicate 250’ Attendees Who Flooded the National Mall to Recommit America to God
Skid Row election scheme allegedly fueled by pocket-change payoffs busted by Trump DOJ
WATCH: Eye-popping illegal immigration stat prompts senator’s demand to ‘redouble’ deportations
Senate Republican threatens to derail ICE, Border Patrol package over Trump’s billion-dollar request
Impeachment or not, the problem is already on display. We spent two years and tens of millions of dollars on an investigation conducted by dozens of lawyers, all for a non-answer on whether one person committed a particular crime. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of us could have violated any of the thousands of criminal laws on the books, and we would be hard-pressed to afford just one lawyer to defend us.
To be sure, criminal conduct is nuanced, and it’s impossible to write a perfect statute. But we shouldn’t ignore the danger in a system where lawmakers, the nation’s top prosecutor or a court of last resort can’t agree on whether something is a crime. Hopefully, lawmakers will soon spend less time politicking and more time making the law clearer.
Story cited here.
