In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all. Only the people’s elected representatives in Congress have the power to write new federal criminal laws. And when Congress exercises that power, it has to write statutes that give ordinary people fair warning about what the law demands of them. Vague laws transgress both of those constitutional requirements. They hand off the legislature’s responsibility for defining criminal behavior to unelected prosecutors and judges, and they leave people with no sure way to know what consequences will attach to their conduct. When Congress passes a vague law, the role of courts under our Constitution is not to fashion a new, clearer law to take its place, but to treat the law as a nullity and invite Congress to try again. [More]Sounds good to me and gun owners running afoul of a federal "crime" while armed may come to appreciate the ruling. The real issue seems to be not one of a precedent that will let the violent out early now, but that those still violent are let out at all.
[Via Mack H]
David,
ReplyDeleteIt occurred to me after sending you this that one of my RKBA heroes, Randy Barnett, pioneered this line of thinking that the presumption of liberty should apply instead of the presumption of constitutionality.
Sometimes referred to as "Rational Basis with Teeth"
Restoring the Lost Constitution - The Presumption of Liberty
* https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10118.html