A law that tells me I have to treat my employees fairly is a law that has already wasted too much of everybody's time. (They do the job I expect from them, they get to keep their job.)
A law that tells me I have to treat my customers fairly is a law that isn't worth the time it took to write it down. (I have several customers who come back every five years or so, and I want to still be there when they come back the next time.)
A law that tells me I have to follow the government's lead is a law that is unconstitutional on its face, and one I will not feel compelled to obey.

So then,

If this law stands I can have members of Congress imprisoned for breaking campaign promises and for governing in quest of their own, personal power rather than putting the Constitution, the country, and their constituents first?

If this law were to be enforced, virtually every politician ever born would have to serve 20 years in prison. Now that's something I could live with.

The mere humans that we are, we basically eat, sleep and do the other thing. Other than that, some of us that don't feel we're owed a living, go work and try and have a little enjoyment in our lives.

Just exactly how many laws are required to get us over the hump? All of my life the laws have been piling-up. There's a new law being enacted, proposed, debated or drafted almost every day -- either at the State or Federal level. Does anyone know how many we have? I lost count when we got to the point where we had enough to fill the Panama Canal.

What in the hell are we doing? We are no longer a nation of the "rule of law." We're now a nation that is: Ruled by laws.

There are lots of workers that buy bad alarm clocks -- they never seem to alarm and get employee out of bed for work.

If the new law is enacted, are employers to attempt to get a court order for a search warrant on the employee's home to find out if he is being honest about his clock not going off?

Just wondering.

What would happen if someone is honest about lying? Does the honesty overturn the lie? And what if someone is not honest about being honest? Maybe they honestly forgot a detail that they were honestly trying to remember -- are they considered lying or telling the truth?

The only defense we'll have if all this comes about is the Hillary defense of years ago:

"I don't recall."

We live in the surreal. Where politicians are trying to enforce: "Honesty." Next thing we'll learn, is Budweiser deciding to do milk commercials.

Sensing it was on shaky ground, the Obama Justice Department tried to assure the Court that the law would realistically only be applied in cases of bribery, kickbacks, or conflicts of interest where there is a financial impact.

So, if this right, then Harry Ried, by giving Louisianna 10milion bucks, thus getting their senator's vote on the health care bill, could plainly be arrested and jailed for Bribery. As could Nancy Pelsoi for steering contracts toward her husband's firm.

Could we also arrest and jail Obama for fraud, since his whole campaign was based on "A Change you can believe in." And since we don't believe in his kind of change, I call it a fraud.

Well said, both Americanus and why...right?.

Why hasn't this 'Duty to be Honest law' been used to shred some Congress Critters and Senators?

it now. Klukowski thumbs his nose at the law by writing an article in which he does not tell the truth. But he knows that he can be fearless because he is so far down the food chain line that he will not be detected. Thus free to claim the $30 earned for writing plus the 10 cents per poster encomium.

cooked the books here a bit. For example, you named the cases and indicate some order of crime and comment on the power of the State to deal with some order of crime. But you avoid dealing with the apparent issue: why is the US involved?

And why introduce the US Postal Service unless, god forbid your readers could know this, the crimes were committed through the Post Office.

I participated in a debate on the constitutionality of secession. A gentleman on the other side quoted John Marshall who spoke about an "empire" to which I responded, "Gee, I thought we had a republic!"

Marshall was in the camp of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams; that is, a believer in a strong CENTRAL government and the rule of the elite. Remember, it was PRESIDENT John Adams who passed the Alien and Sedition Act which made it a crime to criticize the President. Of course, criticizing the VICE President was okay - after all, Adam's V.P. was Jefferson!

criminal activity that is perpetrated by the "federal government"--
Waco, Ruby Ridge, Elian Gonzales, asset forfeiture, coerced "confessions", abuses by atf and "civil rights" agencies, entrapment are all prime examples of government out of control.
Government agents can lie, cheat, steal and commit capital crimes (murder) and GET AWAY WITH IT. (lon horiuchi, are you listening?) Let a ordinary citizen forget "a material act of fact" and they are subject to prosecution.
Read the book "Unintended Consequences" by John Ross to see a possible scenario to "take back" our government. The atf threatened booksellers when it was first published. The "mainstream media" took no notice of this (government) attempt to quash the first amendment.

Every politician who has ever failed to act as he or she campaigned is guilty under HSF by definition. Those who use government transportation for junkets with family and end up sightseeing,shopping, playing golf and sunning on the beaches is depriving the taxpayers of services and are guilty. Let us round up all the guilty in Congress and the administration and start over.

who did more to shape the role of the courts in America than any other man. Yeah. You could say that. Or you could say that he created fictional powers for the SCOTUS. Or yet another way to say it is he re-wrote the enitire f**king US Constitution single handedly, making us an oligarchy under the control of 9 black robed tyrants.

The HSF law is yet another example of the labyrinth of U.S. laws, which cross over the line and unconstitutionally extend federal power to the detriment of States and state sovereignty. HSF is a further symptom of Congress, instead of relying on existing laws, passing new and unnecessary laws at every opportunity.

Fraud is already a crime because it usually involves some sort of theft whether or money or services and, as everybody knows, theft is also a crime even according to God (Thou Shalt Not Steal). But there are definitely degrees of fraud and hence, degrees of culpability. The girl who stuffs her bra with tissues is committing fraud - but her actions don't fall into the same category as the guy who sells shares in the Brooklyn Bridge.

Frankly, our entire government and its many agencies, bureaucracies and lobbies are in the BUSINESS of lying, cheating, stealing and committing fraud. Congress better watch out what it passes into law, lest by virtue of that law, our "leaders" pass into prison.

Yes, the Federal government is overreaching and yes, the American people have, in typical docile fashion, gone along with the erosions of liberty and freedom perpetrated by the feds.

Unfortunately, things are never black and white. In Palm Beach County the corruption of elected officials has a long history. In recent years 3 of 7 County Commissioners have been fed prosecuted honest services fraud, have been convicted, sentenced and are now in prison. Some municipal elected officials were also arrested and imprisoned. Clearly, corruption has run rampant here for years.

Sadly, local/state officials did nothing and allowed corruption to be perpetual. The taxpayers tired of it and it wasn't until the feds stepped in that they were able to clean out the stable.

Now some of these self-admitted crooks are whining and bleating- "but how could we have known that bribery and misuse of our positions to enrich ourselves was wrong? The statute is too vague to have put us on notice." Of course, it is all a crock, but when locals turn a blind eye to corruption, what's to be done?

One is left to offer an unenthusiastic agreement with Mr. Klukowski's position, merely because there is more benefit in removing the feds from every aspect in our lives than there is in allowing them to continue in an ever-expanding role in our daily activities and the continuing over-criminalization of behavior.

Overall, it may be better to suffer through the selective blindness of local and state officials than to allow the federal government into areas in which they should be constitutionally barred.

The people, in their docility, in their passivity are to blame in any case. A more active and effective engagement in political life and a commitment to integrity in government would address such acts as "honest services fraud" before they become endemic and so commonplace that people look the other way as a matter of course.