Law and Categorical Imperative

The term 'Categorical Imperative' is so commonly associated with Kant's Fundamental Principle of Pure Practical Reason, that it is a general grammatical classification, of which Kant's Principle is an instance, is not always recognized.  In fact, the Principle presupposes another instance of a categorical imperative, one that is one of its constituents--a Universal Law, a formulation that requires unconditional obedience.  So, the primary distinction between a Maxim and a Law is while each is a Prescription, and the scope of each is Universal, the former applies to the all the members of that Universe conditionally, while the latter, unconditionally.  Now, the primary function of Kant's Principle is as a procedure for choosing whether or not a Maxim is to be adopted for enactment.  It is hardly the only such procedure, and it is hardly the only universally mandatory selective procedure, i. e. any such Principle is implicitly universally mandatory, e. g. that one promotes maximum Utility.  So, the characterization of it as 'categorical' is not only not unique, but trivial.  Plus, as any Law-breaking demonstrates, any force connoted by the characterization 'categorical' is in itself only nominal.  So, the term 'categorical imperative' might have rhetorical value in the Deontic dimension of Kant's Moral doctrine, but, if anything, only adds confusion to its Rational Ethics.