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.
A degree of overlap is to be expected as there are some factors, such as vagueness, which are to be considered in multiple sections. If the legislation fails any of the above branches, it is unconstitutional. Otherwise the impugned law passes the Oakes test and remains valid. Since Oakes, the test has been modified slightly. [6]
On one set of theories of vagueness, it is indeterminate how many heaps or hairs are required. Perhaps our language simply does not specify a sharp boundary. In the small-improvement argument, the incomparability as vagueness view might say that it is indeterminate whether banking is better or worse than philosophy, or precisely equally good.
About 20.5 million elementary and secondary school-aged kids in the United States ride school buses to and from school each day. And when something goes wrong — a crash, a reckless driver — it ...
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.
Legal moralism is the theory of jurisprudence and the philosophy of law which holds that laws may be used to prohibit or require behavior based on society's collective judgment of whether it is moral. It is often given as an alternative to legal liberalism, which holds that laws may only be used to the extent that they promote liberty. [1]
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. It is a philosophical razor that suggests a way of eliminating unlikely explanations for human behavior. It is probably named after a Ronald M. Hanlon, who submitted the statement to Murphy's Law Book Two: More Reasons Why Things Go Wrong!
In law, there is a known exception to the assumption that moral culpability lies in either individual character or freely willed acts. The insanity defense – or its corollary, diminished responsibility (a sort of appeal to the fallacy of the single cause) – can be used to argue that the guilty deed was not the product of a guilty mind. [17]