Post Vagueness Doctrine Act

The right to a speedy trial is considered an essential part of the due process applicable against the states because of the decision in the case of Klopfer v. North Carolina (1967) and ultimately the inclusion of it within the fourteenth amendment, that was granted by the doctrine of selective incorporation. In this particular case, the defendant Klopfer appealed to the supreme court because his trial had been postponed to be brought up again in the future when desired. Klopfer claimed that the right to a speedy trial, granted by the Sixth Amendment, should be pertinent to a state’s criminal prosecution due to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Ingram, 2009). The case was examined by the supreme court who ruled that the right to a speedy trial is a crucial basic right, just as the other rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment, that has been around for a very long time (Steinberg, 1975).

The Due Process Clause was interpreted differently by various Justices in the Court who were using different theories for understanding the Constitution. There are three major theories for Constitutional interpretation. The first is textualism, which is the theory that the “ordinary meaning” of a law should be used for its interpretation, rather than the reason it was written or the problem it was meant to solve. The second is originalism, which says that the interpretation of a law should be decided based on the original meaning or purpose the law had when it was written. The third is literalism, which is rather self explanatory and, as the name implies, means interpeting the text of a law as literally as possible. I

Due process is when all criminal suspects are guaranteed that they will have the ability to question the evidence against them in an open format. This is where they are entitled to the same protections and procedures as everyone else during a criminal proceeding. As a result, anything that is denying them of these safeguards is violation of their basic rights. (Sundahl, 2011)

Sanctions are only appealed to in the event that there is a breach. It therefore follows that the opinion of Hart is that various form of law cannot be explained in a single expression as orders backed with threats of sanction. Thus, in contradiction with Austin’s viewpoint, Hart formulated a dual system which contains two types of rules, primary rules (duty-imposing) and secondary rules (power-conferring). Primary rules are generally duty-imposing, which embodies non-optional rules of obligation. It often concerned with standard of behavior as requirement to do or to abstain from performing an act. On the other hand, secondary rules are ancillary to primary rules the former conferring right to introduce, to vary the primary rules and to determine the mode in which their violation could be determined (judicial process). Such secondary rules are rather regulatory or facilitative than coercive in nature. In short, Austin’s catch all theory of seeing law as command back with sanction leave no room for right, privileges given to subject of Sovereignty which does not constitute non optional

4. Evidence illegally obtained by the police in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be excluded from trial whether or not the police acted in good faith?

In 1949, Wolf v. the People of the state of Colorado questions whether or not the states can deny the due process law that is required under the Fourth Amendment in a state offense. (FindLaw, 2014) Dr. Wolf was in trial for conspiracy for conducting an abortion on Mildred Cairo. The prosecutors obtained Dr. Wolf’s appointment book and was used as evidence against him. (HENRIKSEN, 20140 Mr. Wolf’s referred to a previous 1914 case, Weeks v. United States, and claimed that his appointment book had been seized in violation the Fourth Amendment. In Weeks v. US it was ruled that any evidence from an illegal search would not be admitted in a federal court. Justice Frankfurter argued that although he agreed that the exclusionary rule was a great way to prevent illegal search and seizures, however, it was not the only way and he denied to imposed this act among the

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most important constitutional protections; however, several procedural issues may arise. As seen in this case, the validity of the search warrant was questioned as well as the extent of the protection afforded. A search may be illegal even if a search warrant was issued; probable cause is

1.A law that restricts a fundamental right violates substantive due process unless it promotes a compelling or overriding state interest. TRUE

The contest of strength between the Crime Control Model and the Due Process Model is similar to attempting to satisfy every person, each and every second and no one some of the time. Debates are good for both models, but for all growth on one side, there must be one on the opposing side as well. The Crime Control Model, prosecutor or the police, is not in favor for the Due Process Model, a person, to have more rights than they do. Each and every individual who is a United States citizen should know what his or her rights are.

47J v. Acton, 515 U.S. 646, 652 (1995). “Reasonableness” is “measured in objective terms by examining the totality of the circumstances” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U.S. 33, 39(1996), and “whether a particular search meets the reasonableness standard ‘ “is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual 's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” Vernonia School Dist. 47J, at pp. 652–653.

As we can see, due process has changed our justice system from hastily-prosecution to time consuming investigation of all the facts. We should stop pre-judging the accused person until all of the facts are made known unto us. Due process has given all accused citizens an equal opportunity to tell their story, and the right to question the evidence that was brought against them. Even though due process has guaranteed the accused person his or her right to be heard

During the 1960s, a time in which the Supreme Court attempted to exercise strong policy control over the administration of criminal justice. The court began to make the states apply to more specific requirements of the Constitutional Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court also made the exclusionary rule applicable to other due process of law rights that are not specifically contained in the constitution or its amendments. For example, if a confession is made as the result of coercion, then it is therefore involuntary and will be excluded because it is as violation of due process of law. Another example is with suspect identification procedures, such as line-ups, when they are not followed or are not fairly administered, may constitute a violation

Vagueness is the rule that a criminal law may be unconstitutional if it does not clearly say what is required or prohibited, what punishment may be imposed, or what persons may be affected. (Hall, 2016.)

shall, to the extent of the inconsistency be void.” This means that any other law within the country

Legal certainty is a characteristic of positive law, which means that the legislature enacts the statute. It ensures consistency in the interpretation of law from time to time and supports the notion that any statute is better than no statue. Legal certainty is required for public benefit and for justice. Therefore, the