There are over 60 million laws, statutes, ordinances, etc. in the U.S. Everyone is ignorant of the law. The entire notion of innate knowledge is absurd -- lawyers and judges always research the law of a case. Maxims of bureaucratic convenience and a lust for uniformity do not make it so.
The fictions that: "every man is presumed to know the law" and its sequel "ignorance of the law does not excuse" are a result of civil-law maxims infecting Romans 2:14-15, i.e., natural law means all know right from wrong.
Traditional common law has recognized that in fact, not all do know the law. Natural law is not known by nature, and common law distinguishes between: an ability to learn & respond to the law (i.e., responsibility), and an innate knowledge of the law.
Scott v. Ford, 45 Or. 531, 78 P. 742, 80 P. 899, 68 L. R. A. 469 (1904) found that money paid "even if accompanied by a mistake as to the law or ignorance of it, a recovery may be had."
So, as OP noted, ignorance of the law can be a valid defense.
There are over 60 million laws, statutes, ordinances, etc. in the U.S. Everyone is ignorant of the law. The entire notion of innate knowledge is absurd -- lawyers and judges always research the law of a case. Maxims of bureaucratic convenience and a lust for uniformity do not make it so.
The fictions that: "every man is presumed to know the law" and its sequel "ignorance of the law does not excuse" are a result of civil-law maxims infecting Romans 2:14-15, i.e., natural law means all know right from wrong.
Traditional common law has recognized that in fact, not all do know the law. Natural law is not known by nature, and common law distinguishes between: an ability to learn & respond to the law (i.e., responsibility), and an innate knowledge of the law.
Scott v. Ford, 45 Or. 531, 78 P. 742, 80 P. 899, 68 L. R. A. 469 (1904) found that money paid "even if accompanied by a mistake as to the law or ignorance of it, a recovery may be had." The legal maxims involved in this decision are Ignorantia facti excusat, ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of the law does not excuse); and Volenti non fit injuria (that to which a person assents is not esteemed in law an injury).
So, as OP noted, ignorance of the law is indeed a valid defense.