Talk:Vagueness doctrine

Persons, conduct

Should this article also mention 'material'? In regards to possession for illegal materials (drugs, unlicensed firearms, obscene/porn media) would that fall under 'conduct of possessing' or something? It seems unique enough to deserve a more distinctive mention. This was brought up in Talk:Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors. Tyciol (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Specific Application

The existing article completely lacks citation in this section, which should be omitted in its entirety. The first element especially is inaccurate and without basis -- having read hundreds of void for vagueness challenge cases I've never seen, as a standard, that a "list" must be developed as asserted in paragraph one in order to not be vague and/or otherwise be constitutional. On the contrary wherever lists are deemed desirable, it simply gives a roadmap, especially in an area even somewhat technical, on how to violate the spirit of the law and get away with it (by not specifically using a listed practice). If lists were necessary, then all of the following areas of law would be struck down, since all of them contain general prohibitions on "schemes or artifices to defraud": securities fraud, anti-corruption laws, consumer protection laws, election fraud, and probably the Sherman Antitrust Act, to name just a few. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.228.243 (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Civil Application

This article focuses exclusively on the void for vagueness doctrine as it relates to criminal actions. I think it should also address when vague legislation or regulations create third party rights of action as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.162.32.5 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate?

Resolved

 – Merged.

Should Unconstitutional vagueness be merged into this article, or vice versa? The principle appears to be the same. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:14, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely, the two should be merged. I don't yet have an opinion on which should be the target, but the final resting place should be Unconstitutional vagueness. TJRC (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Requested move 14 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over a week. Jenks24 (talk) 11:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

---

Void for vagueness → Vagueness doctrine – To match the parallel and closely related Overbreadth doctrine. The present title is weird and unencyclopedic, parroting a phrase that is sometimes but by no means always used in court decisions when striking down a statute under the doctrine; often the doctrine is argued in cases and rejected. This article must (and mostly does) cover the actual doctrine, not just the quotation "void for vagueness". It's inconsistent with our treatment of other legal principles. Some copyediting will be required, especially to the lead, to compensate for the move.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vagueness doctrine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120708000926/http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFL%5CFL2%5C1971%5C19711217_0042752.FL.htm/qx to http://fl.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.%5CFL%5CFL2%5C1971%5C19711217_0042752.FL.htm/qx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)