Constitutional limitation of criminalizing behavior in US law?Constitutional Law - What is “the obligation...

Is an HNN extension of a virtually torsion-free group virtually torsion-free?

What is a common way to tell if an academic is "above average," or outstanding in their field? Is their h-index (Hirsh index) one of them?

Find magical solution to magical equation

How does the reduce() method work in Java 8?

As a GM, is it bad form to ask for a moment to think when improvising?

Dangerous workplace travelling

Does "Captain Marvel" contain spoilers for "Avengers: Infinity War"?

Are pressure-treated posts that have been submerged for a few days ruined?

Prove that a definite integral is an infinite sum

Why do these characters still seem to be the same age after the events of Endgame?

Can there be a single technologically advanced nation, in a continent full of non-technologically advanced nations?

Why did the Apollo 13 crew extend the LM landing gear?

Where are the "shires" in the UK?

Install LibreOffice-Writer Only not LibreOffice whole package

Has the Hulk always been able to talk?

Which US defense organization would respond to an invasion like this?

Why would a military not separate its forces into different branches?

Is there precedent or are there procedures for a US president refusing to concede to an electoral defeat?

Why didn't this character get a funeral at the end of Avengers: Endgame?

Can I use a Cat5e cable with an RJ45 and Cat6 port?

Can you use "едать" and "игрывать" in the present and future tenses?

Checking if two expressions are related

How can Internet speed be 10 times slower without a router than when using the same connection with a router?

Adding command shortcuts to /bin



Constitutional limitation of criminalizing behavior in US law?


Constitutional Law - What is “the obligation of contracts”?Would Trump's debt reduction strategy be constitutional?Can I waive my constitutional rights?Is the Senate rule against “impugning a senator” constitutional?What happens to court precedent after a constitutional amendment?Constitutional autonomy of the state universityIs Citizen-Based Taxation Constitutional?What U.S. Constitutional or statutory authority gives Congress the right to pre-empt state law?When was pretrial detention first declared constitutional?How courts can supercede constitutional rights













1















I'm wondering about the limits put on which behaviors the legislature can criminalize in US law. I'm wondering about things like, could clearly harmless behavior (say, lifting a pack of gum with your left hand on a Tuesday) be criminalized without the law being unconstitutional, or how much discretion does the legislature have to determine whether it wants to consider behavior harmful.



As an example, in German law the Grundgesetz starts with an enumeration of fundamental rights that get divided into liberty rights and equality rights by legal theorists depending on what the individual right protects. Art. 2 GG acts as a generic right to liberty in case any of the specific liberty rights (such as freedom of assembly, of the press, of religion) don't cover something. A law criminalizing wearing blue lipstick for example would be a clear violation of Art. 2 GG, so the legislature is limited in that sense.



Question: what constitutional limits exist for US lawmakers to criminalize behavior?










share|improve this question



























    1















    I'm wondering about the limits put on which behaviors the legislature can criminalize in US law. I'm wondering about things like, could clearly harmless behavior (say, lifting a pack of gum with your left hand on a Tuesday) be criminalized without the law being unconstitutional, or how much discretion does the legislature have to determine whether it wants to consider behavior harmful.



    As an example, in German law the Grundgesetz starts with an enumeration of fundamental rights that get divided into liberty rights and equality rights by legal theorists depending on what the individual right protects. Art. 2 GG acts as a generic right to liberty in case any of the specific liberty rights (such as freedom of assembly, of the press, of religion) don't cover something. A law criminalizing wearing blue lipstick for example would be a clear violation of Art. 2 GG, so the legislature is limited in that sense.



    Question: what constitutional limits exist for US lawmakers to criminalize behavior?










    share|improve this question

























      1












      1








      1








      I'm wondering about the limits put on which behaviors the legislature can criminalize in US law. I'm wondering about things like, could clearly harmless behavior (say, lifting a pack of gum with your left hand on a Tuesday) be criminalized without the law being unconstitutional, or how much discretion does the legislature have to determine whether it wants to consider behavior harmful.



      As an example, in German law the Grundgesetz starts with an enumeration of fundamental rights that get divided into liberty rights and equality rights by legal theorists depending on what the individual right protects. Art. 2 GG acts as a generic right to liberty in case any of the specific liberty rights (such as freedom of assembly, of the press, of religion) don't cover something. A law criminalizing wearing blue lipstick for example would be a clear violation of Art. 2 GG, so the legislature is limited in that sense.



      Question: what constitutional limits exist for US lawmakers to criminalize behavior?










      share|improve this question














      I'm wondering about the limits put on which behaviors the legislature can criminalize in US law. I'm wondering about things like, could clearly harmless behavior (say, lifting a pack of gum with your left hand on a Tuesday) be criminalized without the law being unconstitutional, or how much discretion does the legislature have to determine whether it wants to consider behavior harmful.



      As an example, in German law the Grundgesetz starts with an enumeration of fundamental rights that get divided into liberty rights and equality rights by legal theorists depending on what the individual right protects. Art. 2 GG acts as a generic right to liberty in case any of the specific liberty rights (such as freedom of assembly, of the press, of religion) don't cover something. A law criminalizing wearing blue lipstick for example would be a clear violation of Art. 2 GG, so the legislature is limited in that sense.



      Question: what constitutional limits exist for US lawmakers to criminalize behavior?







      united-states constitutional-law






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 3 hours ago









      G. BachG. Bach

      1255




      1255






















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          2














          There are a number of specific limitation on what can be made criminal in US law, derived from constitutional protection. Expressions of free speech, for example, cannot be made criminal, although there can be laws which regulate or impact speech to a degree. Similarly, the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits a law requiring people to attend a particular church, and he free Exercise clause prohibits any criminal penalties for any religious practice or lack of practice.



          Most of the other provisions of the Bill of right would impose similar limitations. The legislature cannot criminalize what people have a constitutional right to do.



          Beyond that the Due Process clause of the 5th and the parallel clause of the 14th impose limits on criminal law generally. Criminal laws must have (at least) a rational basis. The legislature cannot just prohibit picking up papers because they felt like it, they must have articulated a problem and a plausible reason why a given law would address it. If they don't the law may be overturned as unconstitutional. Similarly, vague laws are prohibited. If a reasonable person cannot tell from the law what is or is not illegal, the law can be overturned for vagueness.



          Then there are procedural limits, also largely derived from the Due Process clause(s). A law cannot automatically convict people without a genuine hearing, in which a person can present a defense to an independent, impartial judge or jury. A law cannot impose duties which are flatly impossible to perform. A law cannot impose punishments which are considered unreasonable for the seriousness of the crime (as evaluated by judges).



          There are other limits as well, it would take a book to list them all in detal. But those are some of the more frequently applied ones.






          share|improve this answer
























          • I think the 9th Amendment is the most similar to Art 2. GG linked in the OP, which is “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” For example, the right to travel between states freely (Shapiro v Thompson).

            – IllusiveBrian
            2 hours ago






          • 1





            The whole "vagueness thing is bad" seems a bit contradictory, really. Vagueness is kind of the hallmark of the constitution; nobody in the legal system seems to have a problem with laws being a byzantine array of things incomprehensible to non-experts; "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; and quite a lot of (supreme) court precedents are necessarily predicated on the idea that it's so hard to understand what the laws and constitution mean, and how to adjudicate them, that most courts and lawyers can't even get it right.

            – zibadawa timmy
            1 hour ago



















          0














          The basic limit is whatever right is protected by the US or state constitution. Really obvious examples pertain to the first amendment, so racial insults cannot be criminalized. We also have a notion that "Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law". An example of such a right being interfered with pursuant to a law is that in many states and at the federal level, any possession or consumption of marijuana is a crime.



          There is a concept "strict scrutiny" according to which the constitutionality of a law is subject to strong rules in case a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or else when a government action involves "suspect classification" such as race or national origin. Fundamental rights may be specifically protected by the Bill of Rights, or could be rights recognized by the Supreme Court as a right protected by the Due Process Clause or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. Even when a right is a fundamental right, it does not mean it is absolutely uninfringible. The government can infringe your fundamental rights if it does to for reasons of a compelling governmental interest, the law is narrowly tailored to only that purpose, and it is the least restrictive way to achieve that purpose.



          If you are not dealing with a fundamental right, there are still purported restrictions on what the government can do, because the law still has to pass the rational basis test. Your proposed ridiculous law probably would not pass a rational basis examination, although it is hard to know for sure because there don't seem to be any cases of laws that have been overturned solely because they lack a rational basis.






          share|improve this answer
























          • In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) an admendment to a state constitution was overturn as lacking rational basis. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) a state law denying education funding used for undocumented immigrants was struck down on intermediate scrutiny. However as Justice marchall said in New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

            – David Siegel
            2 hours ago



















          0














          This may depend on who is interpreting The Constitution.



          But one of the "originalist" interpretations made by Barnett in Reason's "Has The Constitution Lost Its meaning debate" is that The Constitution is not the law that governs the people, but rather it is the law which governs the people who govern the people. His argument for it is that the people don't consent to the Constitution, but all public servants' oath of office requires them to follow the Constitution.



          As such, the Constitution, in its entirety, is a restriction on what various branches of the government may do and when additional restrictions come into being.



          While it was thought, at the time of the writing, that it was unnecessary to put any additional restrictions on government actions (because it would be understood that anything which wasn't explicitly allowed, would be forbidden for the government to do) in order re-enforce this point on some scenarios in which a government would be tempted to overreach, "The Bill of Rights" in the form of additional 10 amendments was added. The Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Congress to pass certain which would curtail some specific rights.






          share|improve this answer


























            Your Answer








            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "617"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: false,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: null,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40692%2fconstitutional-limitation-of-criminalizing-behavior-in-us-law%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes








            3 Answers
            3






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            2














            There are a number of specific limitation on what can be made criminal in US law, derived from constitutional protection. Expressions of free speech, for example, cannot be made criminal, although there can be laws which regulate or impact speech to a degree. Similarly, the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits a law requiring people to attend a particular church, and he free Exercise clause prohibits any criminal penalties for any religious practice or lack of practice.



            Most of the other provisions of the Bill of right would impose similar limitations. The legislature cannot criminalize what people have a constitutional right to do.



            Beyond that the Due Process clause of the 5th and the parallel clause of the 14th impose limits on criminal law generally. Criminal laws must have (at least) a rational basis. The legislature cannot just prohibit picking up papers because they felt like it, they must have articulated a problem and a plausible reason why a given law would address it. If they don't the law may be overturned as unconstitutional. Similarly, vague laws are prohibited. If a reasonable person cannot tell from the law what is or is not illegal, the law can be overturned for vagueness.



            Then there are procedural limits, also largely derived from the Due Process clause(s). A law cannot automatically convict people without a genuine hearing, in which a person can present a defense to an independent, impartial judge or jury. A law cannot impose duties which are flatly impossible to perform. A law cannot impose punishments which are considered unreasonable for the seriousness of the crime (as evaluated by judges).



            There are other limits as well, it would take a book to list them all in detal. But those are some of the more frequently applied ones.






            share|improve this answer
























            • I think the 9th Amendment is the most similar to Art 2. GG linked in the OP, which is “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” For example, the right to travel between states freely (Shapiro v Thompson).

              – IllusiveBrian
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              The whole "vagueness thing is bad" seems a bit contradictory, really. Vagueness is kind of the hallmark of the constitution; nobody in the legal system seems to have a problem with laws being a byzantine array of things incomprehensible to non-experts; "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; and quite a lot of (supreme) court precedents are necessarily predicated on the idea that it's so hard to understand what the laws and constitution mean, and how to adjudicate them, that most courts and lawyers can't even get it right.

              – zibadawa timmy
              1 hour ago
















            2














            There are a number of specific limitation on what can be made criminal in US law, derived from constitutional protection. Expressions of free speech, for example, cannot be made criminal, although there can be laws which regulate or impact speech to a degree. Similarly, the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits a law requiring people to attend a particular church, and he free Exercise clause prohibits any criminal penalties for any religious practice or lack of practice.



            Most of the other provisions of the Bill of right would impose similar limitations. The legislature cannot criminalize what people have a constitutional right to do.



            Beyond that the Due Process clause of the 5th and the parallel clause of the 14th impose limits on criminal law generally. Criminal laws must have (at least) a rational basis. The legislature cannot just prohibit picking up papers because they felt like it, they must have articulated a problem and a plausible reason why a given law would address it. If they don't the law may be overturned as unconstitutional. Similarly, vague laws are prohibited. If a reasonable person cannot tell from the law what is or is not illegal, the law can be overturned for vagueness.



            Then there are procedural limits, also largely derived from the Due Process clause(s). A law cannot automatically convict people without a genuine hearing, in which a person can present a defense to an independent, impartial judge or jury. A law cannot impose duties which are flatly impossible to perform. A law cannot impose punishments which are considered unreasonable for the seriousness of the crime (as evaluated by judges).



            There are other limits as well, it would take a book to list them all in detal. But those are some of the more frequently applied ones.






            share|improve this answer
























            • I think the 9th Amendment is the most similar to Art 2. GG linked in the OP, which is “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” For example, the right to travel between states freely (Shapiro v Thompson).

              – IllusiveBrian
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              The whole "vagueness thing is bad" seems a bit contradictory, really. Vagueness is kind of the hallmark of the constitution; nobody in the legal system seems to have a problem with laws being a byzantine array of things incomprehensible to non-experts; "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; and quite a lot of (supreme) court precedents are necessarily predicated on the idea that it's so hard to understand what the laws and constitution mean, and how to adjudicate them, that most courts and lawyers can't even get it right.

              – zibadawa timmy
              1 hour ago














            2












            2








            2







            There are a number of specific limitation on what can be made criminal in US law, derived from constitutional protection. Expressions of free speech, for example, cannot be made criminal, although there can be laws which regulate or impact speech to a degree. Similarly, the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits a law requiring people to attend a particular church, and he free Exercise clause prohibits any criminal penalties for any religious practice or lack of practice.



            Most of the other provisions of the Bill of right would impose similar limitations. The legislature cannot criminalize what people have a constitutional right to do.



            Beyond that the Due Process clause of the 5th and the parallel clause of the 14th impose limits on criminal law generally. Criminal laws must have (at least) a rational basis. The legislature cannot just prohibit picking up papers because they felt like it, they must have articulated a problem and a plausible reason why a given law would address it. If they don't the law may be overturned as unconstitutional. Similarly, vague laws are prohibited. If a reasonable person cannot tell from the law what is or is not illegal, the law can be overturned for vagueness.



            Then there are procedural limits, also largely derived from the Due Process clause(s). A law cannot automatically convict people without a genuine hearing, in which a person can present a defense to an independent, impartial judge or jury. A law cannot impose duties which are flatly impossible to perform. A law cannot impose punishments which are considered unreasonable for the seriousness of the crime (as evaluated by judges).



            There are other limits as well, it would take a book to list them all in detal. But those are some of the more frequently applied ones.






            share|improve this answer













            There are a number of specific limitation on what can be made criminal in US law, derived from constitutional protection. Expressions of free speech, for example, cannot be made criminal, although there can be laws which regulate or impact speech to a degree. Similarly, the establishment clause of the First Amendment prohibits a law requiring people to attend a particular church, and he free Exercise clause prohibits any criminal penalties for any religious practice or lack of practice.



            Most of the other provisions of the Bill of right would impose similar limitations. The legislature cannot criminalize what people have a constitutional right to do.



            Beyond that the Due Process clause of the 5th and the parallel clause of the 14th impose limits on criminal law generally. Criminal laws must have (at least) a rational basis. The legislature cannot just prohibit picking up papers because they felt like it, they must have articulated a problem and a plausible reason why a given law would address it. If they don't the law may be overturned as unconstitutional. Similarly, vague laws are prohibited. If a reasonable person cannot tell from the law what is or is not illegal, the law can be overturned for vagueness.



            Then there are procedural limits, also largely derived from the Due Process clause(s). A law cannot automatically convict people without a genuine hearing, in which a person can present a defense to an independent, impartial judge or jury. A law cannot impose duties which are flatly impossible to perform. A law cannot impose punishments which are considered unreasonable for the seriousness of the crime (as evaluated by judges).



            There are other limits as well, it would take a book to list them all in detal. But those are some of the more frequently applied ones.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 3 hours ago









            David SiegelDavid Siegel

            18.7k3769




            18.7k3769













            • I think the 9th Amendment is the most similar to Art 2. GG linked in the OP, which is “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” For example, the right to travel between states freely (Shapiro v Thompson).

              – IllusiveBrian
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              The whole "vagueness thing is bad" seems a bit contradictory, really. Vagueness is kind of the hallmark of the constitution; nobody in the legal system seems to have a problem with laws being a byzantine array of things incomprehensible to non-experts; "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; and quite a lot of (supreme) court precedents are necessarily predicated on the idea that it's so hard to understand what the laws and constitution mean, and how to adjudicate them, that most courts and lawyers can't even get it right.

              – zibadawa timmy
              1 hour ago



















            • I think the 9th Amendment is the most similar to Art 2. GG linked in the OP, which is “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” For example, the right to travel between states freely (Shapiro v Thompson).

              – IllusiveBrian
              2 hours ago






            • 1





              The whole "vagueness thing is bad" seems a bit contradictory, really. Vagueness is kind of the hallmark of the constitution; nobody in the legal system seems to have a problem with laws being a byzantine array of things incomprehensible to non-experts; "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; and quite a lot of (supreme) court precedents are necessarily predicated on the idea that it's so hard to understand what the laws and constitution mean, and how to adjudicate them, that most courts and lawyers can't even get it right.

              – zibadawa timmy
              1 hour ago

















            I think the 9th Amendment is the most similar to Art 2. GG linked in the OP, which is “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” For example, the right to travel between states freely (Shapiro v Thompson).

            – IllusiveBrian
            2 hours ago





            I think the 9th Amendment is the most similar to Art 2. GG linked in the OP, which is “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” For example, the right to travel between states freely (Shapiro v Thompson).

            – IllusiveBrian
            2 hours ago




            1




            1





            The whole "vagueness thing is bad" seems a bit contradictory, really. Vagueness is kind of the hallmark of the constitution; nobody in the legal system seems to have a problem with laws being a byzantine array of things incomprehensible to non-experts; "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; and quite a lot of (supreme) court precedents are necessarily predicated on the idea that it's so hard to understand what the laws and constitution mean, and how to adjudicate them, that most courts and lawyers can't even get it right.

            – zibadawa timmy
            1 hour ago





            The whole "vagueness thing is bad" seems a bit contradictory, really. Vagueness is kind of the hallmark of the constitution; nobody in the legal system seems to have a problem with laws being a byzantine array of things incomprehensible to non-experts; "ignorance of the law is no excuse"; and quite a lot of (supreme) court precedents are necessarily predicated on the idea that it's so hard to understand what the laws and constitution mean, and how to adjudicate them, that most courts and lawyers can't even get it right.

            – zibadawa timmy
            1 hour ago











            0














            The basic limit is whatever right is protected by the US or state constitution. Really obvious examples pertain to the first amendment, so racial insults cannot be criminalized. We also have a notion that "Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law". An example of such a right being interfered with pursuant to a law is that in many states and at the federal level, any possession or consumption of marijuana is a crime.



            There is a concept "strict scrutiny" according to which the constitutionality of a law is subject to strong rules in case a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or else when a government action involves "suspect classification" such as race or national origin. Fundamental rights may be specifically protected by the Bill of Rights, or could be rights recognized by the Supreme Court as a right protected by the Due Process Clause or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. Even when a right is a fundamental right, it does not mean it is absolutely uninfringible. The government can infringe your fundamental rights if it does to for reasons of a compelling governmental interest, the law is narrowly tailored to only that purpose, and it is the least restrictive way to achieve that purpose.



            If you are not dealing with a fundamental right, there are still purported restrictions on what the government can do, because the law still has to pass the rational basis test. Your proposed ridiculous law probably would not pass a rational basis examination, although it is hard to know for sure because there don't seem to be any cases of laws that have been overturned solely because they lack a rational basis.






            share|improve this answer
























            • In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) an admendment to a state constitution was overturn as lacking rational basis. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) a state law denying education funding used for undocumented immigrants was struck down on intermediate scrutiny. However as Justice marchall said in New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

              – David Siegel
              2 hours ago
















            0














            The basic limit is whatever right is protected by the US or state constitution. Really obvious examples pertain to the first amendment, so racial insults cannot be criminalized. We also have a notion that "Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law". An example of such a right being interfered with pursuant to a law is that in many states and at the federal level, any possession or consumption of marijuana is a crime.



            There is a concept "strict scrutiny" according to which the constitutionality of a law is subject to strong rules in case a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or else when a government action involves "suspect classification" such as race or national origin. Fundamental rights may be specifically protected by the Bill of Rights, or could be rights recognized by the Supreme Court as a right protected by the Due Process Clause or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. Even when a right is a fundamental right, it does not mean it is absolutely uninfringible. The government can infringe your fundamental rights if it does to for reasons of a compelling governmental interest, the law is narrowly tailored to only that purpose, and it is the least restrictive way to achieve that purpose.



            If you are not dealing with a fundamental right, there are still purported restrictions on what the government can do, because the law still has to pass the rational basis test. Your proposed ridiculous law probably would not pass a rational basis examination, although it is hard to know for sure because there don't seem to be any cases of laws that have been overturned solely because they lack a rational basis.






            share|improve this answer
























            • In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) an admendment to a state constitution was overturn as lacking rational basis. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) a state law denying education funding used for undocumented immigrants was struck down on intermediate scrutiny. However as Justice marchall said in New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

              – David Siegel
              2 hours ago














            0












            0








            0







            The basic limit is whatever right is protected by the US or state constitution. Really obvious examples pertain to the first amendment, so racial insults cannot be criminalized. We also have a notion that "Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law". An example of such a right being interfered with pursuant to a law is that in many states and at the federal level, any possession or consumption of marijuana is a crime.



            There is a concept "strict scrutiny" according to which the constitutionality of a law is subject to strong rules in case a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or else when a government action involves "suspect classification" such as race or national origin. Fundamental rights may be specifically protected by the Bill of Rights, or could be rights recognized by the Supreme Court as a right protected by the Due Process Clause or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. Even when a right is a fundamental right, it does not mean it is absolutely uninfringible. The government can infringe your fundamental rights if it does to for reasons of a compelling governmental interest, the law is narrowly tailored to only that purpose, and it is the least restrictive way to achieve that purpose.



            If you are not dealing with a fundamental right, there are still purported restrictions on what the government can do, because the law still has to pass the rational basis test. Your proposed ridiculous law probably would not pass a rational basis examination, although it is hard to know for sure because there don't seem to be any cases of laws that have been overturned solely because they lack a rational basis.






            share|improve this answer













            The basic limit is whatever right is protected by the US or state constitution. Really obvious examples pertain to the first amendment, so racial insults cannot be criminalized. We also have a notion that "Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law". An example of such a right being interfered with pursuant to a law is that in many states and at the federal level, any possession or consumption of marijuana is a crime.



            There is a concept "strict scrutiny" according to which the constitutionality of a law is subject to strong rules in case a fundamental constitutional right is infringed, or else when a government action involves "suspect classification" such as race or national origin. Fundamental rights may be specifically protected by the Bill of Rights, or could be rights recognized by the Supreme Court as a right protected by the Due Process Clause or the liberty clause of the 14th Amendment. Even when a right is a fundamental right, it does not mean it is absolutely uninfringible. The government can infringe your fundamental rights if it does to for reasons of a compelling governmental interest, the law is narrowly tailored to only that purpose, and it is the least restrictive way to achieve that purpose.



            If you are not dealing with a fundamental right, there are still purported restrictions on what the government can do, because the law still has to pass the rational basis test. Your proposed ridiculous law probably would not pass a rational basis examination, although it is hard to know for sure because there don't seem to be any cases of laws that have been overturned solely because they lack a rational basis.







            share|improve this answer












            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer










            answered 2 hours ago









            user6726user6726

            63.3k457113




            63.3k457113













            • In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) an admendment to a state constitution was overturn as lacking rational basis. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) a state law denying education funding used for undocumented immigrants was struck down on intermediate scrutiny. However as Justice marchall said in New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

              – David Siegel
              2 hours ago



















            • In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) an admendment to a state constitution was overturn as lacking rational basis. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) a state law denying education funding used for undocumented immigrants was struck down on intermediate scrutiny. However as Justice marchall said in New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

              – David Siegel
              2 hours ago

















            In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) an admendment to a state constitution was overturn as lacking rational basis. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) a state law denying education funding used for undocumented immigrants was struck down on intermediate scrutiny. However as Justice marchall said in New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

            – David Siegel
            2 hours ago





            In Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996) an admendment to a state constitution was overturn as lacking rational basis. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) a state law denying education funding used for undocumented immigrants was struck down on intermediate scrutiny. However as Justice marchall said in New York State Bd. of Elections v. Lopez Torres "The Constitution does not prohibit legislatures from enacting stupid laws.'"

            – David Siegel
            2 hours ago











            0














            This may depend on who is interpreting The Constitution.



            But one of the "originalist" interpretations made by Barnett in Reason's "Has The Constitution Lost Its meaning debate" is that The Constitution is not the law that governs the people, but rather it is the law which governs the people who govern the people. His argument for it is that the people don't consent to the Constitution, but all public servants' oath of office requires them to follow the Constitution.



            As such, the Constitution, in its entirety, is a restriction on what various branches of the government may do and when additional restrictions come into being.



            While it was thought, at the time of the writing, that it was unnecessary to put any additional restrictions on government actions (because it would be understood that anything which wasn't explicitly allowed, would be forbidden for the government to do) in order re-enforce this point on some scenarios in which a government would be tempted to overreach, "The Bill of Rights" in the form of additional 10 amendments was added. The Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Congress to pass certain which would curtail some specific rights.






            share|improve this answer






























              0














              This may depend on who is interpreting The Constitution.



              But one of the "originalist" interpretations made by Barnett in Reason's "Has The Constitution Lost Its meaning debate" is that The Constitution is not the law that governs the people, but rather it is the law which governs the people who govern the people. His argument for it is that the people don't consent to the Constitution, but all public servants' oath of office requires them to follow the Constitution.



              As such, the Constitution, in its entirety, is a restriction on what various branches of the government may do and when additional restrictions come into being.



              While it was thought, at the time of the writing, that it was unnecessary to put any additional restrictions on government actions (because it would be understood that anything which wasn't explicitly allowed, would be forbidden for the government to do) in order re-enforce this point on some scenarios in which a government would be tempted to overreach, "The Bill of Rights" in the form of additional 10 amendments was added. The Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Congress to pass certain which would curtail some specific rights.






              share|improve this answer




























                0












                0








                0







                This may depend on who is interpreting The Constitution.



                But one of the "originalist" interpretations made by Barnett in Reason's "Has The Constitution Lost Its meaning debate" is that The Constitution is not the law that governs the people, but rather it is the law which governs the people who govern the people. His argument for it is that the people don't consent to the Constitution, but all public servants' oath of office requires them to follow the Constitution.



                As such, the Constitution, in its entirety, is a restriction on what various branches of the government may do and when additional restrictions come into being.



                While it was thought, at the time of the writing, that it was unnecessary to put any additional restrictions on government actions (because it would be understood that anything which wasn't explicitly allowed, would be forbidden for the government to do) in order re-enforce this point on some scenarios in which a government would be tempted to overreach, "The Bill of Rights" in the form of additional 10 amendments was added. The Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Congress to pass certain which would curtail some specific rights.






                share|improve this answer















                This may depend on who is interpreting The Constitution.



                But one of the "originalist" interpretations made by Barnett in Reason's "Has The Constitution Lost Its meaning debate" is that The Constitution is not the law that governs the people, but rather it is the law which governs the people who govern the people. His argument for it is that the people don't consent to the Constitution, but all public servants' oath of office requires them to follow the Constitution.



                As such, the Constitution, in its entirety, is a restriction on what various branches of the government may do and when additional restrictions come into being.



                While it was thought, at the time of the writing, that it was unnecessary to put any additional restrictions on government actions (because it would be understood that anything which wasn't explicitly allowed, would be forbidden for the government to do) in order re-enforce this point on some scenarios in which a government would be tempted to overreach, "The Bill of Rights" in the form of additional 10 amendments was added. The Bill of Rights specifically forbids the Congress to pass certain which would curtail some specific rights.







                share|improve this answer














                share|improve this answer



                share|improve this answer








                edited 9 mins ago

























                answered 19 mins ago









                grovkingrovkin

                290211




                290211






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Law Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2flaw.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f40692%2fconstitutional-limitation-of-criminalizing-behavior-in-us-law%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Taj Mahal Inhaltsverzeichnis Aufbau | Geschichte | 350-Jahr-Feier | Heutige Bedeutung | Siehe auch |...

                    Baia Sprie Cuprins Etimologie | Istorie | Demografie | Politică și administrație | Arii naturale...

                    Nicolae Petrescu-Găină Cuprins Biografie | Opera | In memoriam | Varia | Controverse, incertitudini...