Vagueness doctrine need not protect grifters choosing profitable illegal conduct

Evidence

Our construction of thestatute does not offend the requirement of definiteness. The picture of the unsuspecting influence merchant, steering a careful course between violation of the statute on the one hand and obtaining money by false pretenses on the other by confining himself to the sale of non-existent but plausible offices, entrapped by the dubieties of this statute, is not one to commend itself to reason. — Henry M. Hart, Jr. and Albert M. Sacks, The Legal Process, 1633

Categorization

• DEFINE: Clarifies the relationship between definiteness/vagueness requirements and the conduct a statute actually targets.
• XREF: connects to: Legalism paradoxically disables the power it aims to secure — Chuck Missler, The Kingdom, Power and Glory: The…, 1228; Criminal punishment patterns lack deterrence or retributive logic — Philip Pettit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and…, 710

Broader Connections

• Legalism paradoxically disables the power it aims to secure #complicates (0.75) — Chuck Missler, The Kingdom, Power and Glory, 1228
• Criminal punishment patterns lack deterrence or retributive logic #qualifies (0.72) — Philip Pettit, Republicanism, 710