vagueness - Constitutional Law II Vagueness&Overbreadth

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–8. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Constitutional Law II Vagueness & Overbreadth
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 Con Law II 2 Nothing Vague about Vagueness Due Process requires clarity Cannot be held accountable for violating secret  or unintelligible laws Example:  IRC Section 501(c)(3) denies tax-exempt  status to organizations if lobbying is “a substantial  part of their activities” IRS Rule: the amount of lobbying allowed depends  on “ all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each  case ”  Some flexibility may be required here But not in criminal law And certainly not where speech is concerned greater  due  process  concerns
Background image of page 2
Fall 2006 Con Law II 3 Due Process requires clarity Provides notice What the First Amendment adds 1 st  A mend  rights are fragile rights, easily “chilled” Arbitrary enforcement based on speech content Any restriction on speech activities must be  accompanied by specific standards to guide law  enforcement Twin vices of vagueness: Lack of adequate notice Invites discriminatory enforcement
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 Con Law II 4 Vague anti-speech laws How vagueness arises imprecise, but comprehensive, standards: “substantial amount of lobbying” lack of any standard at all “An attempt to incite insurrection [is] any attempt, by  persuasion or otherwise to induce others to join in  any combined resistance to the lawful authority of  the state”   Herndon v. Lowry  (1937) what speech is proscribed by this statute?
Background image of page 4
Fall 2006 Con Law II 5 Vague anti-speech laws How vagueness arises imprecise, but comprehensive, standards: “substantial amount of lobbying” lack of any standard at all “An attempt to incite insurrection [is]  any attempt , by  persuasion  or  otherwise  to  induce others  to join in  any combined  resistance  to the  lawful authority  of  the state”   Herndon v. Lowry  (1937) what speech is proscribed by this statute? imagine  rp imagine  wmv
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall 2006 Con Law II 6 Coates v. Cincinnati   (1971) Unlawful for group to conduct itself “in a manner annoying to persons passing by”
Background image of page 6
Fall 2006 Con Law II 7 Coates v. Cincinnati   (1971) Unlawful for group to conduct itself “in a manner annoying to persons passing by” Violates 1 st  A mend  in two-fold sense “subjects the right of assembly to an  unascertainable standard” and Persons of “common intelligence must necessarily 
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 8
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 20

vagueness - Constitutional Law II Vagueness&Overbreadth

This preview shows document pages 1 - 8. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online