- 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.
Legal Eagle is just fantastic. Love the versatility of his channel, everything from serious political analysis (Impeachments, Capitol riots) to nonsense like this & TV reviews