Activity 34: Assignment - Questions and Problem

Activity 34: Assignment - Questions and Problem

Question 1: Differentiate overbreadth from vagueness. Give an example of each

An introductory difference between “vagueness” and overbreadth is essential before examining the scope of overbreadth, since few debates of overbreadth confuse the concept of these two.

A legislative act is overbroad if it “does not intend particularly unprotected activity within the permissible region of the control of state but baffles within its domains other constitutionally protected actions i.e. if a language of a legislative act, given its usual meaning, is so extensive that the legislative act's authorization might needlessly apply to carry out that the state is not allowed to adjust, it is overbroad. The doctrine of overbreadth only applies if it “attains a considerable amount of constitutionally protected demeanor.

A legislative act is vague if “men of common intelligence must essentially presume at its implication and be different to its application.” A speculating citizen engaging in positive activities should be rendered fair notice of what demeanor is forbidden so he or she can avoid engaging unintentionally in criminal activity. Vagueness is also dangerous because it allows uninformed enforcement of the law, breaching the fundamental doctrines of the Fourteen Amendment.

Overbreadth can be differentiated from vagueness by three characteristics: (1) the nature of its conceptions, (2) the scope of its function, and (3) different standing requirements.

As per the first difference, overbreadth is present when language of the legislative act is so far reaching that it enforces to conduct the state is not allowed to govern. In contrast, vagueness pertains to a lack of precision in the authentic content of a legislative act.

2nd - The second characteristic entails the actual function of these doctrines. Whilst, the issues of overbreadth arise in the cases of First Amendment, vagueness has a much broader scope. The principle of vagueness is relevant to all areas of law.

Even thought the strictness of this principles application differs depending on the problem in question. For instance, laws giving ascent to communal accountability are conceived with more reverence to the state while criminal actions are analyzed more critically. In the same way, it has been noted by the court that if a law violates on rights of free speech, “a more severe test of vagueness should apply” than if the law conceded no prospective for interference on some constitutional rights. Here, the insistence of court on more accuracy in legislative language is an instance of the Court's constant recognition of free speech as a legitimate right that should be given particular protection. Additionally, a criminal measure not needing scienter is more possibly vague than one having men's rea.

Finally, these principles vary in relation to the standing necessity. Under the principles of overbreadth, a party whose demeanor is not legitimately protected is always allowed to raise the third parties First Amendment rights not before the court. On the other hand, as applied challenge vagueness needs the movant to have conventional standing.

May religious beliefs be regulated by the state? May religious ...