Facts are stubborn things, regardless of how "funny" you find them, FRiend.
Does the name Archimedes ring a bell? Perhaps Copernicus? Galileo? Faraday? Maxwell? etc.
Government laws are artificial constructs (hopefully based on tradition and good political philosophy such as that of Locke and Burke) that limit the behavior of individuals for the sake of the community as a whole. They don't define scientific laws.
And thank God they don't. Lysenko "defined" the laws of genetics in Russia and set that country's science programs back decades.
Terms like 'hypothesis' and 'theory' have a degree of vagueness to them. What counts as a hypothesis (or just a guess), and when a hypothesis becomes well established enough to count as a theory are sometimes controversial decisions. Right now there are highly respected physicists who call it 'String Theory' and others who demand that it be called the 'String Hypothesis'. Who's right? The last thing any of these scientists will want to do is consult US Law to determine the issue.
There is an interesting discussion on Quantum Mechanics right now. For a long time the majority of scientists held that the Copenhagen Model was the best guess as to what was going on at the atomic level. Now there are at least four candidates for describing why Quantum Mechanics is as non-intuitive as it is, and the Copenhagen Model is now only held by a small percent of scientists. No new experiments or measurements are involved in this process. The only thing that is happening is that scientists and philosophers are thinking very deeply about the data that has already been gathered and trying to determine the most likely reason for why we see what we see.
The philosophers are not 'kings' that determine everything. They are merely playing a small part in the process by which knowledge is gained and turned into wisdom.