Summary: Two Fundamental Principles Of Constitutional Law

Good Essays
When a state law is challenged in federal court as unconstitutionally overbroad or vague, the federal court is caught between two fundamental principles of constitutional law. The void for vagueness doctrine argues that a law cannot be enforced if it is so vague or confusing that men of common intelligence could not figure out what is being prohibited or what the penalties are for breaking that law (Hall, 2015). As a result, the law is so unclearly to defined that persons of common intelligence must guess what punishment may be imposed upon them in a court of law (Hall, 2015). According to vagueness, the Due Process's Clause requires that people be given fair notice of what conduct is allowed and not allowed. Void for vagueness is an argument

Related Documents

  • Good Essays

    The Supreme Court has gained a tremendous amount of power since the states first approved of the rights and limitations set forth for it in Article III during the Constitutional ratification process. Some of this accumulated power, such as the ability to analyze the constitutionality of Congressional legislation, appears to be justifiable in most cases. However, there have been several instances, especially the recent Obergefell v. Hodges case, where the Court has seemed to overstep its boundaries…

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Sweden for questioning on the charges of rape, sexual molestation, and unlawful coercion . Subsequently, a Swedish public prosecutor took from Stockholm District Court a domestic detention order against Mr Assange. In compliance with the criminal law of Sweden, the detention order is admissible for the prosecutor to accelerate to issue a European Arrest Warrant . In order to evade justice in Sweden, Assange moved in UK and started long-continued legal process in local courts. By the way, Westminster…

    • 1014 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Amazing Essays

    Mandatory Minimum Sentences

    • 2345 Words
    • 10 Pages

    precedent setting case in which a mandatory minimum was considered unconstitutional as it was violating section 12([1987] 1 S.C.R).In R.v Smith it was established that the fact that mandatory minimums can be inconsistent with the proportionality principle but the mandatory minimums by themselves do not violate section 12([1987] 1 S.C.R).Furthermore R.v.Smith established a relatively high standard for finding a sentence that is a cruel and unusual punishment, it was established that it would have to…

    • 2345 Words
    • 10 Pages
    Amazing Essays