Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
A law can also be "void for vagueness" if it imposes on First Amendment freedom of speech, assembly, or religion. The "void for vagueness" legal doctrine does not apply to private law (that is, laws that govern rights and obligations as between private parties), only to laws that govern rights and obligations vis-a-vis the government. [citation ...
The courts have generally determined that laws which are too vague for the average citizen to understand deprive citizens of their rights to due process. If an average person cannot determine who is regulated, what conduct is prohibited, or what punishment may be imposed by a law, courts may find that law to be void for vagueness. See Coates v.
Solomon (1973), 33 Cal.App.3d 429 construed the law to require "credible and reliable" identification that carries a "reasonable assurance" of its authenticity. Using this construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held the law to be void for vagueness in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983). [40]
"'[A] law fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process Clause if it is so vague and standardless that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits,'" noted Justice Stevens, "[i]f the loitering is in fact harmless and innocent, the dispersal order itself is an unjustified impairment of liberty."
The legal principle is that delegated power cannot be used more broadly than the delegator intended. Therefore, a regulation may not be so vague as to regulate areas beyond what the law allows. Any such regulation would be "void for vagueness" and unenforceable.
Signed into law by President Ronald Reagan on 27 October 1986 The Federal Analogue Act , 21 U.S.C. § 813 , is a section of the United States Controlled Substances Act passed in 1986 which allows any chemical "substantially similar" to a controlled substance listed in Schedule I or II to be treated as if it were listed in Schedule I, but only ...
Algorithms and patent law City of Philadelphia v. New Jersey: 437 U.S. 617 (1978) Dormant Commerce Clause prohibits banning importation of trash into a state United States v. John (1978) 437 U.S. 634 (1978) Federal government has exclusive jurisdiction under Major Crimes Act for serious offenses committed on an Indian reservation
He declared that individuals are unconstitutionally deprived of due process when they are convicted under "a criminal law so vague that it fails to give ordinary people fair notice of the conduct it punishes." [2] The Court had raised the specter of unconstitutional vagueness in two prior cases regarding the residual clause—James v.