These and similar outlandish and outdated laws, still on the books, illustrate one of the greatest dangers of legislation – failure to follow up. Once legislators have done their legislating, they feel they have done their job. From there on, it's someone else's job to "handle it."
The job of legislation enforcement, of course, falls to local sheriffs, police, and judges, who have neither the time nor the motivation to purge the books of legislations that no longer serve a useful purpose. The result is that obsolete legislation clogs the legal system. The danger is that those obsolete legislations are still enforceable.
The problem is more acute at the federal level, where such legislation as the 1906 Food and Drug Act – empowering the FDA to approve American pharmaceutical companys' dangerous but profitable drugs and to restrict life-saving foreign drugs that conflict with the profit motives of American drug manufacturers – is still in effect, even though its usefulness and reason for being has long since expired.
But the problem goes deeper than obsolescence. There are numerous legislations on the books, such as Johnson's 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and Nixon's 1970 executive order creating the Environmental Protection Agency, that should never have been enacted at all – because they are un-Constitutional.
Legislation is not law. On the contrary, most of it is a nullification of the law. Such misguided legislation as Johnson's 1968 Gun Control Act and Clinton's 1993 Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act are clear violations of the law of the United States of American as instituted in 1791 and specified in the Second Article of The Bill of Rights (the Second amendment to the pre-constitution of 1787).
So what is the source of the flurry of illegal, unnecessary, and counterproductive legislation coming out of Washington DC?
Jeb Bush, in a recent New York Times article in which he tacitly underwrote the perversion often referred to by the oxymoronic term "same-sex marriage," made the following statement. “We live in a democracy, and regardless of our disagreements, we have to respect the rule of law,” That, Jeb, is pure gibberish.
Mr. Bush apparently just threw the two phrases " democracy" and "rule of law" together because he thought they sounded nice. He seems to be unaware that the two concepts are diametrically opposed, and that to juxtaposed them as equivalents makes him look foolish. Democracies do not respect the rule of law. The primary purpose of democracy is to abrogate the rule of law by inciting "public opinion" against it. And if that fails, democrats try to abrogate the law through legislation.
It would seem, then, that the only way to quench the deluge of unwanted and unneeded legislation emanating from Washington DC is to curtail democracy, and to return to the republican principles on which this great nation was built and was made to prosper – respect for the rights of others, responsibility for our own actions and our own welfare, and adherence to and enforcement of the rule of law as codified in the Constitution of the United States.