It Ain't Illegal If I Don't Get Caught

What do the following words have in common:

Gay
Terrible
Ejaculate
Bad
Sick
Congressman

Each of the above originally had a different meaning/usage than it does today. "Gay" used to mean "happy", "terrible" used to mean "awe inspiring", and "ejaculate" meant "exclaim". You get the idea.

The title of this post is an expression that basically means, "if a law is not enforced, it isn't a law". Ever catch someone go through a red traffic light and don't get stopped? Did they break the law? Sure they did. But, since it wasn't enforced, it "really" wasn't broken was it? Or, if you read my last post, "Quit Playing With Yourself and Drive!!", driving while on your cellphone is not really illegal either - if it isn't enforced.

There is another level that I think needs addressed: If a law does not apply equally, it is not a law.

Every couple of years I read through the Federalist Papers. Not an exciting read, but worthwhile nonetheless. In Federalist LVII "The Alleged Tendency of the New Plan to Elevate the Few at the Expense of the Many", I read the following:

"If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the Legislature, as well as on the People, the People will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty."

The argument was that if the Legislature were to make laws that did not apply to themselves, the people would not stand for it. Sorry to say that that turned out to be false.

There are many laws that Congress has passed that they have exempted themselves from. Here are a few:

"Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970" - this applies to "any person engaged in a business affecting commerce who has employees". Under the acts definitions, the term employer "does not include the United States" - which means Congress. Too bad if you get hurt on the job.

"Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)" - this provides a statutory right of access to a wide range of government information to allow citizens to be informed of government affairs. The House and Senate stand by certain "privileges" that have roots in the Constitution, which allows them to not have to disclose certain things to the public.

"18 U.S. Code 208" - The principal financial conflict of interest law for Federal employees - prohibits officers and employees of the executive branch from taking any official action on something that would provide personal financial gain. This does NOT apply to any elected officials of the Federal Government - so Congress, the President, the Vice President, and Federal judges are exempt. Since Martha Stewart was not one of the above, she went to jail for insider trading.

(The above examples were pulled from https://archives-democrats-rules.house.gov/Archives/jcoc2ai.htm)

Reminds me of the bonehead from "Lethal Weapon II" shouting "Diplomatic immunity" whenever he broke the law.

Where am I going with all of this? According to the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

If you apply privileges of royalty onto an existing title, doesn't that equal the granting of a title of nobility?

Calling someone "Congressman" - with all of their privileges and exemptions - like "gay", "terrible", and "ejaculate" - no longer fits the original definition and should be held accountable.

©Emittravel 2019