- How many federal crimes do you think America actually has?
1,500, 5,000, 100,000?
What if I told you no one actually knows?
Hooray!
Yeah.
But the Department of Justice actually tried
to count the number of federal laws,
and had to stop because it was just too hard.
This means that there's no textbook that summarizes
the basis for each crime,
what the government has to prove in court
or the potential penalty for each of these crimes.
In fact, the United States leads the world
in number of people incarcerated.
China is four times bigger,
but it has only 1.6 million people in prison,
while the United States has 2.3 million people behind bars.
We're number one! (sighs)
At the founding of this country,
the Constitution simply enumerated three federal crimes,
piracy, counterfeiting and, of course, treason.
But as the decades went by,
Congress delegated its authority to make laws
to federal agencies,
who went to work writing regulations.
Many of these regulations were passed for good reasons,
but those reasons either no longer exist
or they've simply been lost to time.
So, let's take some time out to look at three categories
of the weirdest federal laws that still exist.
(curious music)
Sponsored by CuriosityStream and Nebula.
So, let's begin our exploration of some of the craziest laws
that still exist in this country with the Post Office.
The Post Office is just about as old as the country itself,
and for most of America's existence,
few crimes were taken more seriously
than screwing with the mail.
The Post Office's unofficial motto
swells with self-importance,
"Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night
"stays these couriers from the swift completion
"of their appointed rounds."
And in the 1800s, you could actually be hanged
for stealing the mail.
And that's all well and good to punish people
who misuse the mail.
But because we live in a nanny state,
where Uncle Sam is always trying to tell you what to do,
they've trampled on our freedoms
to be able to send people via the mail.
Unbelievable.
You might think that no one would ever do this,
but there wasn't actually law prohibited people shipping
for the first 140 years of the Post Office.
And back in the day,
lots of people used the mail service creatively.
For example, Henry Brown was an enslaved man from Virginia
who worked with abolitionists in Pennsylvania
to mail himself out of slavery in 1849.
Brown burned his hand to get out of work,
then packed himself in a shipping crate.
The journey took 27 hours and cost $87,
about $2,500 in today's money.
He stayed free, and became a well-known speaker,
magician and performer.
And it worked because, back then,
it was legal to ship people.
In fact, it was legal to ship babies and children
between 1913 and 1920.
The introduction of the parcel post in 1913,
gave parents exciting new options in child transportation.
Parcel post allowed people to ship heavy objects
for a reduced rate,
and since parcel post was a lot cheaper than a train ticket,
parents often opted to stick an address on their kids
and send them with the postman.
For example, a family in Batavia, Ohio,
sent their son to grandma's house,
less than one mile away, for just 15 cents.
But don't worry, they insured him for 50 bucks.
I mean, that's just good financial planning.
(bright music)
And in 1914, an Idaho family shipped
their five-year-old daughter to their grandparents' house,
73 miles away.
She was sent through a train's mail compartment
with 53 cents of stamps attached to her jacket.
Now, sure, this seems like child abuse,
but the reason postal workers were willing
to transport children by mail
was actually fairly touching.
Families knew their postal carriers well
and trusted them to safely deliver the children.
So, I guess Kevin Costner was right all along.
And Congress let this slide until June of 1920,
when it passed a law that made it a federal crime
to mail humans, regardless of the weight.
Now, that doesn't mean that people have stopped trying
to ship themselves through the mail.
In 2003, a man named Charles McKinley
mailed himself from New York to Texas in a box.
He was convicted of a misdemeanor stowaway charge,
in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2199.
But the heavy hand of tyranny strikes once again,
because living human beings is not the only thing
that you can't send via the Post Office.
No, you actually can't send miniature spoons.
Why?
Well, the USPS continues to add to the list
of things you cannot mail,
which, not surprisingly, prohibits sending of anything
by mail that is determined to be drug paraphernalia,
but that includes things such as miniature spoons
with level capacities of less than
1/10 of a cubic centimeter.
Turns out that tiny spoons are great
for snorting cocaine.
Yeah, so in 1979, Congress heard testimony
from anti-drug lobbyists
who talked about the need to get McDonald's
to stop using their very popular,
little coffee-stirring spoons.
These little spoons were beloved by coffee drinkers
and drug dealers alike.
♪ I'm lovin' it ♪
- Dealers used to buy them in bundles.
And even today, these spoons are sought after.
You can get them on eBay.
But if they're sent through the mail,
you have probably just committed a federal crime.
And that takes us to the most vile
of all Post Office-related crimes,
and that is that you can't dress up like a postal carrier.
Yes, there are hundreds of crimes related
to the U.S. Postal Service,
but the worst is, of course,
wearing a postal carrier uniform,
which can get you up to six months in prison
under 18 U.S.C. 1730.
18 U.S.C. 1730 says, "Whoever, not being connected
"with the letter-carrier branch of the Postal Service,
"wears the uniform or badge which may be prescribed
"by the postal service to be worn by the letter carriers,
"shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
"not more than six months, or both."
Eventually, Congress passed a law allowing actors
to wear USPS uniforms,
but only under the condition
that the production portray the postal carrier
in a positive light,
so obviously, like this.
Now, if this strikes you as super-hot
but also unconstitutional, you're absolutely right.
The U.S. once made it illegal for actors
to wear military uniforms,
unless the production showed the military
in a positive manner.
However, the law was struck down
by the Supreme Court in 1970,
since allowing actors to wear uniforms
only if the rule did not discredit the military
was a violation of the actor's 1st Amendment right
to free speech.
And even though that law was struck down,
it took Congress 21 more years to remove the same language
from the postal worker statute.
The law now reads, "The provisions of the proceeding
"paragraph shall not apply to an actor or actress
"in a theatrical, television or motion picture production
"who wears the uniform or badge
"of the letter-carrier branch of the Postal Service
"while portraying the member of that service."
Which, of course, is how we got this guy.
- I'll tell you a little secret about zip codes.
They're meaningless.
- Newman.
But let's talk about the truth
and consequences in food regulation,
because often, lawyers are literally paid
to engage in food fights.
People can be convicted of many kinds of food crime,
because the U.S. regulates food,
cosmetics and drugs pretty heavily.
But understanding which agencies regulate food
is very, very complicated, even for lawyers,
so let's talk about the jurisdictional battles
of the food cops.
There are two federal agencies that regulate food.
There's the Food and Drug Administration
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The FDA is responsible for regulating labels
on all processed foods created and sold in the U.S.
The USDA oversees mostly meat, poultry and eggs.
The FDA regulates about 75% of America's food supply
and the USDA has the rest.
And the division between the two agencies
makes for some delicious jurisdictional battles.
Take eggs.
Whole eggs, shells and all,
are the responsibility of the FDA,
but liquid eggs are regulated by the USDA.
This might seem strange since an egg is composed
of a shell and some liquid.
Why divide them?
But this complicated division exists
throughout the food regulation regime.
For example, the FDA has jurisdiction
over non-domesticated poultry,
like wild turkeys, ducks and geese.
Whereas the USDA regulates domesticated poultry,
like turkey, chickens, and yes, domestic geese and ducks.
But things got even more complicated
when we talk about sandwiches.
Bread is a bakery product that is regulated by the FDA,
but meat, like ham or turkey or beef,
is regulated by the USDA.
So, who regulates a simple turkey sandwich?
Well, this is where things get really interesting.
And by interesting, I mean, complicated.
The FDA regulates a sandwich with two slices of bread.
This is because the FDA regulates bread.
But take away one slice of bread
and make it an open-face sandwich,
and the USDA steps in since the ratio of meat to bread
and other ingredients is more than half.
And this is no laughing matter,
the food cops are deadly serious about it.
Here's a notice from the USDA about inspection
of closed-face sandwiches that are on their way to Canada.
And the agency knows that places like White Castle or KFC
might shove meat between two biscuits or pancakes,
or even chicken between two slices of chicken,
so they have that covered as well.
But perhaps the biggest food related tragedy in all of law
is that you can't make food with love.
That's right, companies that get a little too cheeky
with the way that they list ingredients on their food
could be looking at a prison sentence.
Check out this mean letter from the FDA
to the Nashoba Brooke's Bakery,
which had the audacity to include love
as an ingredient in its bread.
"Your Nashoba Granola and Whole Wheat Bread,
"wholesale and retail, products are misbranded
"within the meaning of section 403 of the Act.
"For example, your Nashoba Granola label
"lists ingredient, 'Love.'
"Ingredients required to be declared on the label
"or labeling of food must be listed
"by their common or usual name.
"Love is not a common or usual name of an ingredient,
"and is considered to be intervening material
"because it is not part of the common or usual name
"of the ingredient.
That's right, Nashoba,
the government has questions.
"Just what is this love ingredient?
"How much love is in a pound of granola?
"Is love measured in grams, ounces or pounds?
"What kind of hippy bread and granola are you cooking up
"over there in Massachusetts?"
Thankfully, for Nashoba, the FDA encourages
self-correction of alleged violations of the FDCA
over criminal prosecution,
and generally, if a violation is suspected,
the FDA will provide the alleged offender
with the opportunity to correct unlawful conduct
before taking further action,
and to remove all love from your products.
However, the government regulators
could opt for prison time
if you demand to add love to your food.
A first offense conviction of a mislabeled consumer product
might carry a maximum sentence of one year
in federal prison or a $1,000 fine,
and the text of the statute allows the FDA to charge both.
Hopefully, the government recognizes
that there's a difference between selling eggs
with the incorrect date for the purpose
of passing off old eggs as fresh,
and labeling your granola as containing
lots and lots of love.
Obviously, the love is much, much worse.
But don't worry,
as long as they don't sell and label them,
Grandma can still bake your cookies
with as much love as she wants, from prison.
All right, we've talked about the Post Office,
we've talked about eliminating the scourge
that is the love that is pervasive in all of our foods,
and let's talk about the final category
of crazy federal laws, that is weather laws.
And if you've enjoyed this video so far,
please give it a like so we can make sure
that more people know about all the crazy laws
that still exist in this country.
But it's also important that you know
not to falsify a weather report.
It's actually a violation of federal law
to falsify a National Weather Service forecast
and pass it off as official.
Not that any high-ranking government official
has ever falsified a weather report.
In fact, if one were crazy enough
to take a Sharpie and falsify a National Weather Report,
you could actually get 90 days in jail
for breaking this law.
18 U.S.C. 2074 reads, "Whoever knowingly issues
"or publishes any counterfeit weather forecast
"or warning of weather conditions falsely
"representing such forecast or warning
"to have been issued or published by the Weather Bureau,
"United States Signal Service
"or their branch of the government service
"shall be fined under this title or imprisoned
"not more than 90 days, or both."
This might seem like a trivial thing.
However, if an official violates this law,
it's a serious matter.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's
National Weather Service, the NWS,
is the government agency that provides
weather forecast and reports across this country.
And giving out false information
can interfere with the farming and shipping industries,
and could even cause people to put themselves in harm's way.
And for a practical application of this law
that probably doesn't get a whole lot of use,
we need look no further than former President Trump,
who caused a controversy by insisting that hurricane Dorian
was tracking towards Alabama, when it was not.
Trump made this claim via tweet.
What, you thought I was going to say
that he made it in a well-rehearsed speech?
No, he made it in a tweet.
But the National Hurricane Center did not,
at any point, include Alabama in it's forecast,
for where Dorian would make landfall.
The NWS Birmingham quickly corrected the President
in assuring people that they didn't need to evacuate.
But contradicting the President was a big no-no
during the Trump era.
Rule number one was, never contradict the President.
And, of course, an angry President Trump
dug in and defended himself by saying that,
"Days earlier, the path of the hurricane included Alabama,"
and produced a chart with a Sharpie drawing.
The National Weather Service was under pressure
not to contradict President Trump,
so it ended up putting up false information
to cover the president.
But the law wasn't actually tailor made
to former President Trump.
Back when meteorology was still a new science,
amateurs were selling weather forecasts all the time.
- It's 68 degrees, and there's a 30% chance
that it's already raining.
- This was problematic, especially when they asserted
that the information was coming from the U.S. government.
So, the government's major concern was that people
would hold the government accountable for bogus reports.
Therefore, they passed laws making it illegal
to falsify a government weather report.
But at an even more fundamental level,
you actually can't change
the weather itself without permission.
For example, in 15 U.S.C. 330,
it actually prohibits anyone from modifying the weather,
quote, "No person may engage or attempt to engage
"in any weather modification activities in the United States
"unless he submits to the Secretary of Commerce
"such reports with respect to thereto,
"in such form and containing such information,
"as the Secretary by rule prescribe."
Section 330 gives the Secretary of Commerce
the power to subpoena anyone caught modifying the weather
without proper notification.
If a person defies the Secretary of Commerce subpoena,
the court may find that person to contempt and jail them.
And contrary to popular belief,
this law was not invented to fight the My Little Ponies,
rather the Genesis of this law
is actually a process called cloud-seeding
that was started in the 1940s.
It involved sending small aircraft into the clouds
to effectively modify them,
and inserting chemicals to enhance precipitation,
dissipate fog, modify hurricanes
and decrease lightning and hail in thunderstorms.
But cloud-seeding is a pretty controversial act
and it's officially banned in warfare.
This is partially because the U.S. used it in Vietnam
to extend the monsoon season,
which stopped the North Vietnamese
from moving troops and materials southward.
So, yes, the weather can be altered,
but you can only do it with government permission.
And that's not surprising,
'cause you need government permission
for a whole bunch of stuff,
and we'll go into more detail about that soon.
And I explain one more crazy federal law over at Nebula.
In fact, I posted a whole extended version
of this video over there.
Did you know that you have to feed your pigs hot garbage?
Almost all of my videos have an ad-free,
extended version on Nebula,
and now you can get a huge discount.
Because, sometimes, talking about hot garbage
is too hot for YouTube,
which is why my creator friends and I teamed up
to build our own platform
where creators don't need to worry about demonetization
or the dreaded algorithm.
It's called Nebula, and we're thrilled
to be partnering with CuriosityStream.
Because Nebula's a place where creators
can do what they do best, create.
It's a place where we can both house our content ad-free,
and also experiment with original content and new series
that probably wouldn't work on YouTube.
And not only are my Nebula versions ad-free and extended,
but they're also released early before the YouTube version.
Nebula features a lot of YouTube's top
educational-ish creators, like Extra Credits,
Real Engineering and Wendover Productions.
And we also get to collaborate in ways
that probably wouldn't work on YouTube,
and put out amazing original content,
like Half as Interesting's courtroom drama,
where I play a real-life fake lawyer.
So, what does this have to do with CuriosityStream?
Well, as the go-to source or the best documentaries
on the planet, like Peter Sagal's "Hi$tory,"
spelled with a dollar sign,
they love educational creators.
And we worked out a deal where, if you sign up
for CuriosityStream with the link in the description,
you'll also get a Nebula subscription for free.
And to be clear, that Nebula subscription is not a trial,
it's free for as long as you're a CuriosityStream member.
And right now, CuriosityStream is offering
26% off of their annual plans.
That's less than $15 a year
for both CuriosityStream and Nebula.
So, if you click the link in the description,
you'll get both CuriosityStream and Nebula for 26% off,
or you can go to CuriosityStream.com/LegalEagle.
It's a great way to support this channel
and educational content directly, for under $15 a year.
That's less than the cost of Legal Eagle's Patreon.
So, just click on the link in the description
yo get CuriosityStream and Nebula together.
Plus, clicking on that link really helps out this channel.
Now, leave your objections in the comments,
and check out this playlist over here,
with all of my other videos about crazy laws
and legal misunderstanding.
So, click on this playlist, or I'll see you in court.