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
