5
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − '''Void for vagueness''' is a legal argument often made to invalidate laws that disfavor [[abortion]]. "Void for vagueness" generally applies only to criminal statutes, but it is often used to declare unconstitutional non-criminal, ''civil'' laws against abortion.+ − − The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held in an abortion decision that "the void-for-vagueness doctrine" requires that laws prohibit something only "with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited" while providing enough sufficient standards that it "does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement." ''[[Gonzales v. Carhart]]'', 550 U.S. 124, 149 (2007). "The degree of vagueness that the Constitution tolerates ... depends in part on the nature of the enactment," with greater tolerance for statutes imposing civil penalties and those tempered by scienter requirements. ''Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc.'', 455 U.S. 489, 498-99 (1982). − − But our laws need not have "mathematical certainty from our language." ''Hill v. Colorado'', 530 U.S. 703, 733 (2000) (quoting ''Grayned v. City of Rockford'', 408 U.S. 104, 110 (1972)). Moreover, "speculation about possible vagueness in hypothetical situations not before the [c]ourt will not support a facial attack on a statute when it is surely valid 'in the vast majority of its intended applications.'" ''Hill'', 530 U.S. at 733 (internal citation omitted). ''See also Am. Commc'ns Ass'n, C.I.O. v. Douds'', 339 U.S. 382, 412 (1950). − − If there is any reasonable interpretation to the statute, then it is constitutional. The ''Gonzales'' court held that "the elementary rule that every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." ''Gonzales'', 550 U.S. at 153. − [[Category:abortion]] − [[Category:abortion legal arguments]]
Replaced content with "MY LITTLE PONY"
MY LITTLE PONY