See 16 U.S.C. 3371–78 (2006).
 See 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(A) & (B)(i)–(iii) (2006) (“It is unlawful for any person * * * to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce (a) any fish or wildlife taken, possessed, transported, or sold * * * in violation of any foreign law; (b) any plant * * * (i) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any law or regulation of * * * any foreign law, that protects plants or that regulates—(I) the theft of plants; (II) the taking of plants from a park, forest reserve, or other officially protected area; (III) the taking of plants from an officially designated area; or (IV) the taking of plants without, or contrary to, required authorization; (ii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold without the payment of appropriate royalties, taxes, or stumpage fees required for the plant by any law or regulation of any State or any foreign law; or (iii) taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of any limitation * * * under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plants * * *.”). The federal courts have construed the act to include not merely foreign statutes, but also other forms of law, even ones that impose only civil sanctions. See, e.g., United States v. McNabb, 331 F.3d 1228, 1239 (11th Cir. 2003) (“Regulations and other such legally binding provisions that foreign governments may promulgate to protect wildlife are encompassed by the phrase ‘any foreign law’ in the Lacey Act.”); United States v. Mitchell, 985 F.2d 1275, 1280–83 (4th Cir. 1993) (Pakistani government orders); United States v. One Afghan … Mounted Sheep, 964 F.2d 474 (5th Cir. 1992) (same); United States v. Lee, 937 F.2d 1388, 1391–92 (9th Cir. 1991) (foreign regulations); United States v. 594,464 Pounds of Salmon, 871 F.2d 824, 825 & n.2, 828–29 (9th Cir. 1989) (a Taiwanese board’s “announcement” that was not technically a “regulation” and imposed only a civil penalty).
 See Edwin Meese III & Paul J. Larkin, Jr., Reconsidering the Mistake of Law Defense, 102 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 725 (2012).
 See, e.g., Barlow v. United States, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 404, 411 (1833) (“It is a common maxim, familiar to all minds, that ignorance of the law will not excuse any person, either civilly or criminally * * *.”); Oliver Wendell Holmes, The Common Law 40–41 (1881) (Reprint 2009); Wayne R. LaFave, Criminal Law § 5.6, at 305–18 (5th ed. 2010).
 See, e.g., FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 2307, 2317 (2012) (collecting cases); Anthony G. Amsterdam, Note, The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67 (1960) (discussing the historical development of the void-for-vagueness doctrine).
 See, e.g., Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 459 (2001) (“core due process concepts of notice, foreseeability, and, in particular, the right to fair warning as those concepts bear on the constitutionality of attaching criminal penalties to what previously had been innocent conduct”) (emphasis deleted).
 See Jerome Hall, Nulla Poena Sine Lege, 47 Yale L.J. 165, 165, 178 (1937).
 See Screws v. United States, 325 U.S. 91, 96 (1945) (plurality opinion) (“To enforce such a [vague] statute would be like sanctioning the practice of Caligula, who ‘published the law, but it was written in a very small hand, and posted up in a corner, so that no one could make a copy of it.’”); Livingston Hall & Selig J. Seligman, Mistake of Law and Mens Rea, 8 U. Chi. L. Rev. 641, 650 n.39 (1940) (“[W]here the law was not available to the community, the principle of ‘nulla poena sine lege’ comes into play.”).
 That rule does not rest on the fiction that people will read the penal code before acting. Instead, the law requires that, were someone to make that effort, the criminal statutes must be written with sufficient clarity that a reader could understand them. See McBoyle v. United States, 283 U.S. 25, 27 (1931).
 See Meese & Larkin, supra note 3, at 760–61.
 Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451, 453 (1939) (footnote omitted).
 United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954).
 Connally v. Gen. Constr. Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).
 See, e.g., Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 199 (1991) (the rule that ignorance of the law is no defense is “[b]ased on the notion that the law is definite and knowable”).
 See, e.g., Holmes, supra note 4, at 41.
 See Hall & Seligman, supra note 8, at 644 (“[T]he early criminal law appears to have been well integrated with the mores of the time, out of which it arose as ‘custom.’”); John Salmond, Jurisprudence 426 (8th ed. 1930) (“The common law is in great part nothing more than common honesty and common sense. Therefore although a man may be ignorant that he is breaking the law, he knows very well in most cases that he is breaking the rule of right.”).
 Jerome Hall, Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law, 33 Ind. L. Rev. 1, 14 (1957).
 Flores-Figueroa v. United States, 556 U.S. 646, 652 (2009).
 See LaFave, supra note 4, § 1.3(f), at 14–15 (defining malum in se and malum prohibitum offenses).
 See Gerald E. Lynch, The Role of Criminal Law in Policing Corporate Misconduct, 60 Law & Contemp. Probs. 23, 37 (1997) (“Legislatures, concerned about the perceived weakness of administrative regimes, have put criminal sanctions behind administrative regulations governing everything from interstate trucking to the distribution of food stamps to the regulation of the environment.”); see also, e.g., Lawrence M. Friedman, Crime and Punishment in American History 282–83 (1993); Graham Hughes, Criminal Omissions, 67 Yale L.J. 590, 595 (1958); Sanford Kadish, Some Observations on the Use of Criminal Sanctions in the Enforcement of Economic Regulations, 30 U. Chi. L. Rev. 423, 424–25 (1963); Francis Bowles Sayre, Public Welfare Offenses, 33 Colum. L. Rev. 55, 63–67 (1933).
 See, e.g., John Baker, Jr., Revisiting the Explosive Growth of Federal Crimes, The Heritage Found., Legal Memo. No. 26 (June 16, 2008), available at http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/06/revisiting-the-explosive-growth-of-federal-crimes.
 See Meese & Larkin, supra note 3, at 739–44.
 One Nation, Under Arrest xv–xvi (Paul Rosenzweig ed., 2d ed. 2013).
 William J. Stuntz, Self-Defeating Crimes, 86 Va. L. Rev. 1871, 1871 (2000); see also, e.g., Glenn Harlan Reynolds, Ham Sandwich Nation: Due Process When Everything Is a Crime, 113 Colum. L. Rev. Sidebar 102 (2013) (“[A]ny reasonable observer would have to conclude that actual knowledge of all applicable criminal laws and regulations is impossible, especially when those regulations frequently depart from any intuitive sense of what ‘ought’ to be legal or illegal. Perhaps placing citizens at risk in this regard constitutes a due process violation; expecting people to do (or know) the impossible certainly sounds like one.”).
 See, e.g., United States v. Harriss, 347 U.S. 612, 617 (1954).
 Patricia Elias, Logging and the Law: How the U.S. Lacey Act Helps Reduce Illegal Logging in the Tropics 5 (Apr. 2012), available at http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/illegal-logging-and-lacey-act.pdf. In 2008, Congress added plants to the category of potentially illegal imports. Acting at the behest of a coalition of environmental organizations and the domestic timber industry, Congress amended the act as part of a far larger farm policy bill, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110–234, 122 Stat. 923 (2008), in order to include plants taken or processed and imported in violation of a foreign nation’s law. See Francis G. Tanzcos, Note, A New Crime—Possession of Wood: Remedying the Due Care Double Standard of the Revised Lacey Act, 42 Rutgers L.J. 549 (2011). The rationale was the desire to protect foreign ecosystems and the domestic timber industry by targeting an alleged billion-dollar black market in foreign logging. See H.R. Rep. No. 110-627, 110th Cong. (2008); Kristina Alexander, Cong. Res. Serv., The Lacey Act: Protecting the Environment by Restricting Trade 2, 6 (Apr. 12, 2012); Tanzcos, supra, at 549–50 & n.4.
 331 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir 2003).
 Some Lacey Act violations are felonies; others, misdemeanors. It is no argument that Lacey Act violations are simply misdemeanors and therefore do not create a serious risk of long-term imprisonment. Individual misdemeanor sentences can add up quickly. The federal government can charge each Lacey Act violation as a separate offense, and a judge can impose a separate one-year sentence for each conviction. Consider a company like Gibson Guitar, which imports dozens, scores, or hundreds of guitar frets made from wood grown overseas. The government doubtless could find some foreign law that Gibson or an intermediary has violated or some required form that has not been properly filled out or filed. The government then could charge Gibson Guitar with a separate violation for each guitar fret. Or consider a fisherman like Abner Schoenwetter, who hauls in a net full of lobsters. If he takes in 500 lobsters at one time, he exposes himself to 500 years’ imprisonment per haul.
 See INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983); cf. Clinton v. City of New York, 542 U.S. 417 (1988) (Article I requires the same process in order to repeal or amend an existing law).
 See A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935); Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan, 293 U.S. 388 (1935).
 See, e.g., Whitman v. Am. Trucking Ass’ns, 531 U.S. 457 (2001); Mistretta v. United States, 489 U.S. 361 (1989); Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414 (1944); J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States, 276 U.S. 394 (1928); United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911); see also INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919, 953 n.16 (1983) (distinguishing administrative rulemaking from the Article I lawmaking process because agencies cannot exceed the limits of their authorizing statutes).
 See, e.g., Whitman, 531 U.S. at 472 (quoting J.W. Hampton, 276 U.S. at 409).
 See Michael C. Dorf, Dynamic Incorporation of Foreign Law, 157 U. Pa. L. Rev. 103, 105 (2008) (“dynamic incorporation does delegate lawmaking authority”).
 See, e.g., Whitman, 531 U.S. at 474.
 See, e.g., United States v. Lee, 937 F.2d 1388, 1393–94 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Rioseco, 845 F.2d 299 (11th Cir. 1988); United States v. 594,464 Pounds of Salmon, 871 F.2d 824, 829–30 & n.9 (9th Cir. 1989); United States v. Molt, 599 F.2d 1217, 1219 n.1 (3d Cir. 1979); cf. United States v. Bryant, 716 F.2d 1091, 1094–95 (6th Cir. 1983) (rejecting argument that the act impermissibly delegates federal lawmaking authority to the states); Rupert v. United States, 187 F. 87, 90–91 (8th Cir. 1910) (same).
 See United States v. Molt, 599 F.2d 1217, 1219 n.1 (3d Cir. 1979) (“The Act does not delegate legislative power to foreign governments, but simply limits the exclusion from the stream of foreign commerce to wildlife unlawfully taken abroad. The illegal taking is simply a fact entering into the description of the contraband article * * *.”).
 See United States v. 594,464 Pounds of Salmon, 871 F.2d 824, 830 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[T]he Act does not call for the assimilation of foreign law into federal law. Rather, the Act merely provides that once a violation of a foreign law has occurred, that fact will be taken into account by the government official entrusted with enforcement.”).
 See The Confiscation Cases, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 454, 457 (1868).
 See United States v. Rioseco, 845 F.2d 299, 302 (11th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted) (“Congress has made it a United States crime to take, to sell, or to transport wildlife taken in violation of any foreign law relating to wildlife…. Congress, itself, has set out the penalties for violation of these Lacey Act provisions…. Thus, Congress has delegated no power, but has itself set out its policies and has implemented them.”); accord United States v. Guthrie, 50 F.3d 936 (11th Cir. 1995) (following Rioseco).
 See, e.g., U.S. Const. art. II, § 2, cl. 1 (the Opinion Clause); id. cl. 2 (the Appointments Clause). For instance, Congress has the power to create “Post Offices and postal Roads,” U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 7, but the Framers did not expect that the President would deliver the mail.
 See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 126 (1976) (“[A]ny appointee exercising significant authority pursuant to the laws of the United States is an ‘Officer of the United States,’ and must, therefore, be appointed in the manner prescribed by [the Appointments Clause].”).
 See, e.g., Freytag v. Comm’r, 501 U.S. 868, 880 (1991) (“The Appointments Clause prevents Congress from dispensing power too freely; it limits the universe of eligible recipients of the power to appoint.”).
 See, e.g., Pub. Citizen v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 491 U.S. 440, 483–84 & n.4 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring) (quoting The Federalist No. 76, at 455–56 (A. Hamilton) (Clinton Rossiter, ed., 1961)).
 See, e.g., Free Enterprise Fund v. PCAOB, 130 S. Ct. 3138, 3146–47 (2010).
 The likely vehicle would be a lawsuit brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 704 (2006). See, e.g., Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367, 1371–72 (2012).
 226 U.S. 137 (1912).
 Id. at 140–44.
 278 U.S. 116 (1928). In Roberge, a trustee of a home for the elderly poor sought to obtain a permit to enlarge the facility to allow additional parties to reside there. A Seattle zoning ordinance limited buildings in the relevant vicinity to single-family homes, public and certain private schools, churches, parks, and the like but empowered the city to grant a zoning variance if at least one-half of the nearby property owners consented. Id. at 50–51 & n.1. The city building superintendent denied the permit because the adjacent property owners had not consented to the variance, and the trustee sued. Relying on Eubank, the Court held that, while zoning ordinances are generally valid, the Seattle ordinance was unconstitutional as applied in those circumstances because it enabled the nearby property owners to deny a variance for their own capricious reasons. Id. at 121–22.
 298 U.S. 238 (1936). Carter Coal involved delegation challenge to the Bituminous Coal Conservation Act of 1935, ch. 824, 49 Stat. 991 (1935). The act authorized local coal district boards to adopt a code fixing agreed-upon minimum and maximum prices for coal. The act also allowed producers of more than two-thirds of the annual tonnage of coal and a majority of mine workers to set industry-wide wage and hour agreements. Shareholders of other coal producers argued that the act unlawfully delegated federal power to private parties. Relying on Eubank and Roberge (and A.L.A. Schechter Poultry Co. v. United States, 295 U.S. 495 (1935), which held invalid a similar delegation of authority under the National Industrial Recovery Act, ch. 90, 48 Stat. 195 (1933)), the Supreme Court held that the act vested federal power in the hands of a party interested in the outcome of a business transaction. 298 U.S. at 311.
 See also City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enters., Inc., 426 U.S. 668 (1976) (noting and distinguishing the Eubank and Roberge cases without criticizing them or suggesting that they no longer are good law).
 242 U.S. 526 (1917).
 439 U.S. 96 (1978).
 467 U.S. 229 (1984).
 In Cusak, a Chicago ordinance prohibited the erection of billboards in residential communities without the consent of a majority of the residents on both sides of the relevant street. 242 U.S. at 527. The Court distinguished Eubank on the ground that the Richmond ordinance allowed a majority of local residents to impose a restriction, while the Chicago ordinance allowed a majority of local residents to lift an otherwise valid prohibition. Id. at 527, 531. New Motor rejected a due process delegation challenge to a state law directing a state agency to delay vehicle franchise establishments and locations when an existing dealer objects. 439 U.S. at 108–09. Relying on New Motor, Midkiff rejected the argument that due process prohibits a state from allowing private parties to initiate the eminent domain condemnation process. 467 U.S. at 243 n.6.
 See, e.g., Meese & Larkin, supra note 3, at 738–83; Paul J. Larkin, Jr., A Mistake of Law Defense as a Remedy for Overcriminalization, 26 A.B.A.J. Criminal Justice 10 (Spring 2013); Paul J. Larkin, Jr., The Injustice of Imposing Domestic Criminal Liability for a Violation of Foreign Law, The Heritage Found., Legal Memo. No. 94 (June 12, 2013), available at http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2013/pdf/lm94.pdf.