Consider the following laws: a law that makes speeding criminal and then looks at people with past speeding tickets and sends them to prison, a law that prevents people from "harming others," and a law that says it is illegal to become an alcoholic. Why do all of these laws fail as matters of constitutional law, and what revisions would need to be made to make them valid?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

The law that says speeding has become criminal and then punishes past speeders is known as an ex post facto law, which is not permitted by the Constitution. An ex post facto law makes an act criminal and then punishes offenders who did the act before it was criminal as if they had broken the law at the time. A law that prevents people from "harming others" violates the Constitution because it is too vague or broad for the intent to be clear. What is meant by "harming others"? Physical harm, verbal harm, both, or neither? The law that says it is illegal to become an alcoholic is not permitted because it makes a person's status a crime. To be revised so it would not be stricken from the record, the law about speeding could still change to be made criminal, but anyone who sped before the law was written would not be punished. For the law about "harming others," considerable work would need to be done to clarify what kind of harm was being prohibited. For the law about alcoholics, it could be revised to make alcohol illegal. That would allow alcoholics to be punished for buying and selling alcohol, but not for their status as a person.