Comments on: Excellent http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/04/30/excellent-15/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:47:39 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: T F Stern http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/04/30/excellent-15/comment-page-1/#comment-199541 T F Stern Thu, 01 May 2008 03:22:15 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15527#comment-199541 Mike is correct in noticing that laws which are intentionally worded in such a way as to be vague are unconstitutional. Chris got it right as well when he points out that just because of the black robe doesn't mean you get to write the laws, to the contrary, that function is left to the legislature. "judge Jack B. Weinstein misinterpreted the law", actually judge Weinstein went along with an end around that he knew to be both unconstitutional because it was intentionally vague and in so doing showed that his bias deserves his removal from the bench. Mike is correct in noticing that laws which are intentionally worded in such a way as to be vague are unconstitutional.

Chris got it right as well when he points out that just because of the black robe doesn’t mean you get to write the laws, to the contrary, that function is left to the legislature.

“judge Jack B. Weinstein misinterpreted the law”, actually judge Weinstein went along with an end around that he knew to be both unconstitutional because it was intentionally vague and in so doing showed that his bias deserves his removal from the bench.

]]> By: chris http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/04/30/excellent-15/comment-page-1/#comment-199534 chris Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:49:38 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15527#comment-199534 Rudy who? BTW, this is a great decision and a real spanking of Judge Weinstein. Just because you wear the black robe doesn't mean you get to write the laws. Rudy who?

BTW, this is a great decision and a real spanking of Judge Weinstein.

Just because you wear the black robe doesn’t mean you get to write the laws.

]]> By: Mikee http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/04/30/excellent-15/comment-page-1/#comment-199532 Mikee Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:17:33 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/?p=15527#comment-199532 Under the law, N.Y. 1 Penal Law § 240.45 provides, in pertinent part: 2 A person is guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when. . . 3 By conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, he 4 knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or 5 health of a considerable number of persons . . . . So is Bloomberg, through his conduct "unreasonable under all the circumstances," potentially guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree for his anti-self-defense activities? This law seems like a catch-all against general mopery and unseemly political incorrectness.... Aren't laws which are too vague unconstitutional? Under the law, N.Y. 1 Penal Law § 240.45 provides, in pertinent part:
2 A person is guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree when. . .
3 By conduct either unlawful in itself or unreasonable under all the circumstances, he
4 knowingly or recklessly creates or maintains a condition which endangers the safety or
5 health of a considerable number of persons . . . .

So is Bloomberg, through his conduct “unreasonable under all the circumstances,” potentially guilty of criminal nuisance in the second degree for his anti-self-defense activities?

This law seems like a catch-all against general mopery and unseemly political incorrectness….

Aren’t laws which are too vague unconstitutional?

]]>