Earliest effective American Law What is the earliest American federal law that could technically be used to prosecute someone today, that has not been overridden by another law? For the purposes of this question, we are talking about only federal laws, not the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution or its amendments, but actual bills ratified by congress.
First law An act to regulate the time and manner of administering certain oaths First law containing a crime via Wikipedia: The renewal of the Northwest Ordinance, which authorized the executive to adopt state law within the Northwest Territory i.e. An Act to provide for the Government of the Territory North-west of the river Ohio (1 Stat. 50). However, as best I can see this gives the Governor of the territory and, initially, judges (later a legislature) the authority to make laws, without specifying any crimes. First solely criminal law An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States (1 Stat. 112) First law containing a crime, still in effect Possibly the above. Certainly, this article on U.S. Law Enforcement Abroad: The Constitution and International Law describes (in reference 11) "18 U.S.C. §2381 (1982), adopted originally as Act of Apr. 30, 1790, ch. IX, 1 Stat. 112." The wording of 18 U.S. Code § 2381 does seem to closely mirror that of the 1790 Act: Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. versus That if any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted, on confession in open court or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and shall suffer death.
The double jeopardy clause would prevent you from being retried by the government that tried you for murder (probably a U.S. state). But, you could be tried for fraud and obstruction of justice at the state level, and you could be tried for murder if an appropriate federal offense were located, at the federal level. Often conspiracy to deprive someone of their civil rights is used as a federal offense when there is a state level acquittal, and it isn't impossible to imagine that happening in this case as the victim had a right to the protection of the laws, and the state had a right to enforce the criminal laws, which was deprived in a manner that could be called "under color of state law.'
While the point made by user6726 is not wrong with respect to this particular statute, it doesn't address a more basic point about how the supremacy clause works. Federal criminal laws govern punishments for federal crimes in the federal criminal justice system. Federal prosecutors bringing federal criminal charges against criminal defendants in the federal criminal justice system can and do secure death penalty sentences against criminal defendants in states where there is no state death penalty. One recent case where that happened was the Boston Marathon bombing case where a defendant was sentenced to death in federal court for the crime for violation of a federal criminal statute, despite the fact that Massachusetts has no death penalty of its own. This is not a supremacy clause issue. No state law had to be changed or invalidated because of the existence of the federal law. States law governs how the state criminal justice system works, not the federal criminal justice system. When we say that a state has abolished the death penalty, we mean that it has abolished it in the state criminal justice system. This doesn't absolutely foreclose the possibility that the death penalty will be imposed in that state on federal charges, although it does make it far less likely that the death penalty will be imposed. Partially, this is because "blue collar" crime is handled by the states. Partially, this is because out of comity and a concern that juries in states without a death penalty are less likely to vote for a capital sentence, federal prosecutors are less likely to seek the death penalty in a state without capital punishment than in a state with capital punishment. For example, there are 2,902 people on death row as of 2016, in the U.S. Almost 98% of death penalty convictions that have not yet been carried out were obtained in state courts. Only, 62 involve civilian death penalties imposed in federal courts (mostly in states that have the death penalty) and another 6 involve death penalties imposed in military courts (mostly in states that allow the death penalty or abroad). All of the other cases arose in state courts.
Such a law would be constitutional The US Congress could decide to require VPN providers to register the IPs that they provide to VPN customers. The use of such techniques would almost surely be considered &quot;interstate or foreign commerce&quot; and so Congress would have power under the Commerce Clause of the constitution to legislate concerning it. There would clearly be a rational basis for such a law -- the question outlines such a basis. This is not an area subject to strict scrutiny. None of the previously established limits on the commerce power (and there are few) would seem to apply. State laws on this topic would probably be preempted by the dormant commerce clause if Congress does not act, and clearly preempted if Congress does act, unless Congress explicitly permits concurrent legislation. Whether Congress should act on this matter is a policy question not on topic on Law.se. Whether Congress will act is speculation. I can only say that I am not aware of any widespread demand for such action, or any proposed bills, on the topic. However, there is US caselaw to the effect that anonymous speech (or other communication) is protected by the First Amendment , and that laws effectively banning anonymous speech are not acceptable. But there are other ways of anonymizing online speech, so that would not seem to provide sufficient grounds to overturn such a law.
"Seditious libel" has happened before, but not in the US. This comes up in NY Times v. Sullivan, which notes that For good reason, "no court of last resort in this country has ever held, or even suggested, that prosecutions for libel on government have any place in the American system of jurisprudence." City of Chicago v. Tribune Co., 307 Ill. 595, 601, 139 N.E. This Volokh article gives various citations showing that a government entity cannot sue for libel.
You don't specify a jurisdiction but taking the US as an example, yes you could be charged with 2nd Degree Murder - you intended to harm them but not specifically to kill them: A second situation that constitutes second-degree murder is where the perpetrator intends only to cause serious bodily harm but knows that death could result from the act. For example, in the situation above, instead of shooting Bill, Adam grabs a shovel and whacks Bill in the head with all his strength. While Adam didn't specifically intend to kill Bill when he hit him, he did intend to strike him with the shovel knowing that such a blow to the head carried with it a distinct possibility of death. Adam killing Bill in this way would be classified as murder in the second degree. In English law you'd be facing charges for Voluntary Manslaughter
In Egbert v. Boule, 596 U.S. ___ (2022), the Supreme Court held that &quot;there is no Bivens action for First Amendment retaliation.&quot; The Court was unanimous on this point. This means that right now, there is no way to sue for a damages remedy for First Amendment retaliation by federal officials. The majority said that &quot;Congress, not the courts, is better suited to authorize such a damages remedy.&quot;
The general rule, in US courts, is that a person (or organization) can only sue if that person has actually been harmed in some way by the actions of the person or entity to be sued. This is called having standing. In some cases a law specifically grants standing more widely than the usual rule would. For example, some state elections laws grant standing to any voter to challenge certain kinds of procedural violations. In some countries there are special courts in which governmental actions (or inaction) alleged to be in violation of law can be challenged. In the US there is no such special court, such challenges are brought, if at all, in the form of ordinary lawsuits brought by individuals, groups, or organizations. Sometimes a person who has actually been injured by a governmental action must be found in order to mount a legal challenge to that action. There are other mechanisms than lawsuits which may be used to force compliance with law. An official who is acting improperly may be impeached, convicted, and removed from office. And non-compliance may be politically unpopular, and lead to a change of administration or to a legislator not being re-elected. But of course neither of those remedies always works. In some cases one part or agency of the government can sue another part or a specific official. The law may explicitly provide for this, or a court may declare such a suit to be permitted. In some cases there is apparently no way to force a legal settlement of a dispute. For example, the US Federal constitution has an &quot;emoluments clause&quot; which essentially says that the President shall not accept payments from foreign rulers or governments. It was apparently intended as a sort of anti-bribery provision. No US court has ever enforced it, and recent cases seem to suggest that impeachment is the only way to enforce it. (It seems that this is incorrect, and a better example is needed.) The current US system is imperfect (as is every other system I know of, although in different ways). The reason for the standing rule is that if everyone who felt that something wrong was being done, even if not to him or her personally, could sue, the courts would be totality overrun with such suits, and much of government would have no time to do anything but to defend such suits. That is because almost every governmental action offends or angers someone, even if it does not do that person measurable harm. Limiting suits to cases where the plaintiff has standing is a key method of keeping the system in check. The US doe3s not have any overriding monitor agency which can sue for any improper government action. If it did, who would keep that agency in its proper bounds?