Government's Self-Insulation
Making Laws When You Don't Have A Clue
There is a principle in law that called Ignorantia juris non excusat, which is Latin for “ignorance of the law is not a defense.” It comes from a rational perspective that if people could claim they were not aware of a law, they might use this as a defense. Therefore, the potential exists for people to lie and claim they did not know a law exists with the hope of being acquitted or having a lawsuit dropped. It makes sense, from the government’s perspective.
Rationally, however, what of the assumptions implicit in this principle? If one thinks about this principle from the perspective of the citizen, it is certainly not as straight forward as the government believes it is. If ignorance is not an excuse, then it logically follows that citizens must know all laws. Likewise, at the federal level, Ignorantia juris non excusat applies also to federal administrative rules. An appropriate question is how many laws and administrative rules are there that all citizens have to have memorized under this principle. Currently, the federal register contains slightly more than 30,000 statutes. So the law requires each and every citizen to memorize or, at least, be familiar with 30,000 laws and administrative rules in the federal register. It is also the case that the federal government adds between 200-600 statutes per year. A moving target indeed.
The legal principle extends to state laws as well. California, for example, has over 395,000 rules and regulations, with the number of laws being signed each year about the same as the federal government. Of course, this does not include local municipal and county laws that citizens have to deal with everyday. Therefore, according to this legal principle, Californians have to be specifically cognizant of 425,000 legal regulations from both their own state and federal government. Seems like a tall task.
What of the people in our accountability system (judges, prosecutors, police officers, clerks, etc)? When I was very young (probably 9 or 10), my parents had friends who would come over to our house and socialize over dinner periodically. In the summer, they would sit out on the front porch and tell stories into the late evening. My father, a college professor, would have his colleagues over, as well as people who attended our church or who were otherwise friends. I remember talking with one of my father’s friends before I was ushered off to bed. Judge Monce was the county judge who was known in my town as a reasonable, fair arbiter of justice. I remember inquiring about what he had in his chambers. He mentioned a number of things, but what stood out was his description of the huge law library, that was in his chambers. The well respected Judge Monce had not memorized all the laws, like we are supposed to in accordance with Ignorantia juris non excusat!
At issue here is not whether judges, police officers, HVAC repairmen or 5th grade teachers have memorized the law. The underlying girder that holds up government is the belief that law making is completely separate from real life considerations and practicalities. Government rarely, if ever reviews whether their law is actually possible, although there are a few Congressional Members who do look into this. Politicians apparently believe that the law of man supersedes laws of physics, chemistry and engineering, and even evolutionary biology. It’s a lie that permeates the government.
To illustrate, when my two children were young (5 or 6), my daughter used to torment her brother. They had a game where one person would call out a number and the other person had to jump up and down that many times. My son would say 6 and my daughter had to jump up and down 6 times to be in compliance with the game. That worked great until my daughter’s turn would come and she would assert the number 5 1/2. Imagine being asked to jump up and down 5 1/2 times! Despite my son’s glorious attempts to hover in the air, defying the laws of gravity, he simply could not comply. But what if the rules of the kids game were handed down by Congress and had fines and prison terms attached? It still would not matter. The problem is in the law itself, not in its application or jurisdiction.
I worked as a contractor for Freightliner in the late 2000’s, then a part of Mercedes. I remember when the new CAFE standards came out for large trucks requiring a higher standard of fuel efficiency. Although I was working in a different department for them, I did ask one of my engineering friends about the new CAFE standard and whether it would be difficult to meet. He told me it was impossible to meet “because, well you know, physics”. I don’t know if it was just difficult or impossible, but I took his word at it and went about my project.
Lawmakers often advertise that they do fact finding sessions where they subpoena expert witnesses to find out what’s going on. On closer review, if you have ever watched them on CSPAN or the evening news, they are decidedly less fact finding and more of either fully advocating their made up mind into the record, or challenging those who disagree with their position. Lately, some of the ineptly named “hearings” don’t involve listening at all, they are just grandstanding opportunities.
There are a number of causes of “fantasy legislation.” One of the biggest is the fact that most legislators are lawyers - they know how to promulgate laws, but probably do not have the domain expertise to differentiate between high probability outcomes and the simply untenable. Legislators weigh in on our healthcare system, for example. There are a couple of doctors (Rand Paul comes to mind) who understand how the system actually works and what is possible, but they often get overridden by those who have no experience and simply vote on an ideology basis. How many lawyers have post graduate work in economics, have been in the military (I know a few have), run a Fortune 500 company? Nope, a few and nobody. Imagine hiring a young brick layer to do you tax accounting: would you sign the form and send it to the IRS? Nether would I.
What does it say that 3 Supreme Court justices voted that juries don’t need to be unanimous in a verdict. These are the same people who preach about democracy and in no way practice it. The law of the land has served us well for over 200 years but we know better now. NO we don’t, until we return to following our constitution and amendments we cannot move forward. The basic concept of America hangs on the beliefs that got us here.