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.
‘Christian’ University Under Fire Over Grant to ‘Foster Inclusion’ of ‘LGBTQIA+ Individuals and Women’ in the Church
WaPo Defends Alleged Hounding of Intel Officials: Tulsi’s ODNI Strikes Back with Cutting 3-Word Response
Xi Jinping’s surprise no-show at BRICS Summit fuels speculation about China’s global standing
Trump on a roll, back-to-back victory weeks: White House Report Card
North Carolina governor vetoes Republican-led anti DEI and trans legislation
Parents desperately seeking answers on missing campers after Texas flood
Republicans praise ‘big, beautiful bill’s’ work requirement for Medicaid: ‘We’ve got to get back to work’
Revolting: Pop Star Laughs and Sings About Murdering ‘4 or 5’ of Her Own Children Via Abortion
Past Comments Come Back to Bite Hakeem Jeffries After Record-Setting ‘Filibuster’
One dead after fireworks explosion sets Los Angeles home on fire
Trump White House calls out Smithsonian for pushing ‘one-sided, divisive political narratives’
Deadly social media trend threatens kids, homeowners defending themselves: ‘children are going to get killed’
Where the ceasefire negotiations stand ahead of Trump-Netanyahu meeting
NYC temporarily shuts down Queens beaches after sharks swim dangerously close to Fourth of July crowd
Human remains discovered days after devastating California fireworks facility explosion
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.
‘Christian’ University Under Fire Over Grant to ‘Foster Inclusion’ of ‘LGBTQIA+ Individuals and Women’ in the Church
WaPo Defends Alleged Hounding of Intel Officials: Tulsi’s ODNI Strikes Back with Cutting 3-Word Response
Xi Jinping’s surprise no-show at BRICS Summit fuels speculation about China’s global standing
Trump on a roll, back-to-back victory weeks: White House Report Card
North Carolina governor vetoes Republican-led anti DEI and trans legislation
Parents desperately seeking answers on missing campers after Texas flood
Republicans praise ‘big, beautiful bill’s’ work requirement for Medicaid: ‘We’ve got to get back to work’
Revolting: Pop Star Laughs and Sings About Murdering ‘4 or 5’ of Her Own Children Via Abortion
Past Comments Come Back to Bite Hakeem Jeffries After Record-Setting ‘Filibuster’
One dead after fireworks explosion sets Los Angeles home on fire
Trump White House calls out Smithsonian for pushing ‘one-sided, divisive political narratives’
Deadly social media trend threatens kids, homeowners defending themselves: ‘children are going to get killed’
Where the ceasefire negotiations stand ahead of Trump-Netanyahu meeting
NYC temporarily shuts down Queens beaches after sharks swim dangerously close to Fourth of July crowd
Human remains discovered days after devastating California fireworks facility explosion
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.
‘Christian’ University Under Fire Over Grant to ‘Foster Inclusion’ of ‘LGBTQIA+ Individuals and Women’ in the Church
WaPo Defends Alleged Hounding of Intel Officials: Tulsi’s ODNI Strikes Back with Cutting 3-Word Response
Xi Jinping’s surprise no-show at BRICS Summit fuels speculation about China’s global standing
Trump on a roll, back-to-back victory weeks: White House Report Card
North Carolina governor vetoes Republican-led anti DEI and trans legislation
Parents desperately seeking answers on missing campers after Texas flood
Republicans praise ‘big, beautiful bill’s’ work requirement for Medicaid: ‘We’ve got to get back to work’
Revolting: Pop Star Laughs and Sings About Murdering ‘4 or 5’ of Her Own Children Via Abortion
Past Comments Come Back to Bite Hakeem Jeffries After Record-Setting ‘Filibuster’
One dead after fireworks explosion sets Los Angeles home on fire
Trump White House calls out Smithsonian for pushing ‘one-sided, divisive political narratives’
Deadly social media trend threatens kids, homeowners defending themselves: ‘children are going to get killed’
Where the ceasefire negotiations stand ahead of Trump-Netanyahu meeting
NYC temporarily shuts down Queens beaches after sharks swim dangerously close to Fourth of July crowd
Human remains discovered days after devastating California fireworks facility explosion
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.
