Centerfield

The "Plain English" concept. Been around for a while, nice to see that at least one judge is in favor of it. Now if we could just get our legislators to give it a try!

Oh, I like this. In fact, I (if I were king of America) would go much farther:

the annual budget should be written like the financial statements that companies provide for their shareholders; and

all sponsored legislation, and all political campaigns will have attached the names of all organizations which contribute to the sponsors, or campaigns; and

all political debates will take place under the auspices of the National Forensic League, and under rules no more complicated than high-school debates; and

Publicly-financed media will be required to carry all public policy announcements and all political debates live, and will not be permitted to broadcast news which is available commercially. This includes national, state, and local governments; and

(since I am the king) drunk drivers, habitual tailgaters, cellphone talk-and-drivers, and owners of Hummers will all have their driving privileges permanently suspended after a suitably long period of public humiliations.

This conceptual version of Due Process seems to have a revival every generation or so.

That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties is a well-recognized requirement, consonant alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law; and a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essential of due process of law.

It may go without saying but, in hindsight, I will say anyway, that unconstitutionality for vagueness is almost always limited to criminal law.

If this judgement stands, I submit that the entire Federal Tax Code must fall as unconstitutional.

Do we have a link to the full opinion, or perhaps the case name and citation so we can have a look at the whole thing rather than just an abstracted quote?

Simon,

The decision referred to is a small portion of the Patriot Act which prohibits individuals from contributing "training", "expert advise or assistance", and "service" to organizations named by the Secretary of State as being terrorist organizations.

In the aftermath of the tsunami last year, the plaintiffs in the lawsuit wanted to contribute to the Liberation Tigers, which seeks a separate homeland for the Tamil people in Sri Lanka, and an organization promoting a separate Kurdistan nation. They sought an injunction against the government for enfocing those provisions.

The ruling is extremely limited, and in fact upheld portions of the law, including the provision banning providing "personnel" to those groups. It was the other types of contribution which the judge found too vague. The judge was careful to limit her order only as to those two particular defendants; she made it clear she was not striking down the statute as it applied to any other groups in any other circumstances.

Here's a story in the Washington Post. The judge had previously declared that portion of the law unconstitutionally vague, then Congress amended it, and the decision was the judge saying the amendments didn't help.

Personally, I find the challenged phrases pretty easy to understand. Note also that the judge was not ruling the list of terrorist organizations wrong. This just lets people so inclined to "support lawful, nonviolent activities of groups the secretary of state has put on a blacklist," as the attorney for the plaintiffs put it. Me, if an organization supports terrorism, I don't approve of supporting any of it. Helping the "peaceful" part of the IRA was, to my mind, no difference from helping build the IRA bombs. Money and support tends to be pretty fungible, so money given to one part of an organization frees up other money to be used elsewhere.

Me, if an organization supports terrorism, I don't approve of supporting any of it. Helping the "peaceful" part of the IRA was, to my mind, no difference from helping build the IRA bombs. Money and support tends to be pretty fungible, so money given to one part of an organization frees up other money to be used elsewhere.

Very true. But I think the problem here is that in practice this can get very complicated. Suppose a terrorist organization starts an affiliated or even nominally separate organization for the sole expressed purpose of funding a school. Suppose you give that organization money because you think these schools are a good idea, perhaps without even knowing of the affiliation between the school organization and the terrorist group.

Or suppose you give money to a pro-life group for a protest, and then that money gets laundered to finance a fringe plot to assassinate a doctor who performs abortions, or to bomb a clinic. (and please not that I'm not saying this has happened or that

What then? Do you hold the funders responsible if you can't prove that their intent was to fund illegal activity? Seems to me that the underlying problem is that a group may be organized to reach a goal that is in some sense worthwhile, even though the means that the group has chosen may be reprehensible.

I don't have any good answers. I agree with the notion that it's important to stifle terrorist funding, but if they are clever about it, I am not down with extending the existing laws and ensnaring people who don't actually support violence.

Brian,

None of that is the case with the law or the situation described. That law doesn't prohibit giving money to "terrorist organizations" but to "terrorist organizations on the list compiled by the Secretary of State." There's nothing in there about going after people based on what some group not listed does with the money after you've contributed to it.

I am curious to know what is meant by average. Would that be based of a GPA from 10-15 years ago. The scores on ones ACT and SAT tests, how good you are at Trivial Pursuit? And if you are of average intelligence, are you allowed in on the vote? I consider myself average, do you?

Pat, where does this law place the responsibility? Is it my responsibility to check this list before I write a check? How long is this list? What about name changes of organizations and the creation of affiliated groups with different names?

Your link doesn't appear to be functioning.