Only if you ignore or strike down 52 U.S.C. § 30121(b)(2) AND 22 U.S.C. § 611(b)(2)-(3). @VolokhChttps://twitter.com/rickhasen/status/889512642758418432 …
-
-
Replying to @baseballcrank @VolokhC
b(2) does not come into play in a Don Jr. prosecution and focus on b(1) solves overbreadth problem
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen @VolokhC
If I were Don Jr's lawyer, I'd be VERY happy if the govt conceded it had to prove (b)(1)/(b)(1). But overbreadth deals with whole breadth.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @baseballcrank @VolokhC
Not according to overbreath expert Dick Fallon http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1031&context=californialawreview …pic.twitter.com/onCIweg1Uw
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rickhasen @VolokhC
He's citing cases that didn't even question separate parts of a statute. Look at overbreadth cases, eghttps://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/559/460/opinion.html …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
The argument you're making about 22 U.S.C. § 611(b) would divide up the *definitional* section of that statute.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
i'll try to respond to this tonight when I'm not on a deadline with some counter examples
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.