Vagueness and Unintended Consequences of Laws

"Wonderland", by Dan Henninger, Columnist of the WSJ, who wrote today a classic description of the void-for-vagueness in the 2000 plus pages of the ObamaCare health bill. He lists a classic example of this doctrine from a 1926 doctrine of Justice George Sutherland. Sutherland wrote "a statute which forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning....violates the first essential of due process of law."

Henninger says, "that any such common-sense rule still exists in law, politics or life is a wonder." "If only on principle, someone from the GOP, (I've given up on 98%of the Democrats in Congress and most everywhere else) should start demanding that all federal legislation pass a "void-for-vagueness" test. In this congressional session, none would survive. If the Supreme Court can demand clarity of behalf of convicted felons, (think Skilling and Scrushy, see my 7/1/05 blog "More Opportunities for Pillage" who the sentencing judge said in this bribery and corruption case, 'damaged public trust in state government'. Sound familiar?) How about demanding clarity on behalf of everyone else, who until their luck runs out, remain innocent?"

The full story can be found on the opinion page of the WSJ under the title of, "A Plague of Vagueness".

Lot's of luck to small business people who should be voting a Republican ticket this November as their "luck is running out" under this administration.

Now just 12 months out of the OC (ObamaCare) bill comes the commonly called Dodd-Frank financial reform bill. This several thousand page bill which Texas Republican Jeb Hensarling says, "There are probably three unintended consequences on every single page of this bill", is another large chunk of meat, no bones, thrown to the Bar Association and especially to the tort attorneys.