Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Surprise.... | Main | That's strange. The theater had put up "no guns allowed" signs, after all »

A thought on the indictment of Rick Perry

Posted by David Hardy · 16 August 2014 09:54 PM

Patterico pretty well takes it apart, but I'd add a thought.

One of the two charges is violation of a statute which penalizes anyone who "misuses" "government property, services, personnel or any thing of value." Sounds to me like it's void for vagueness. "Misuses" is hardly clear; there are many uses of government property which some would say was "misuse" and others would say was a proper use. An is a veto government "property" or "any other thing of value"? No one can possess or transfer a veto.

There's a couple of Supreme Court cases relating to this, applying the federal mail fraud statutes, which punish any use of the mails as party of a scheme or artifice to defraud. Federal prosecutors sought to apply this is "theft of honest services," i.e., a scheme to deprive the public of honest services by a public official or a corporate executive. In McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), the Supreme Court held the statute simply didn't allow for this. Congress then amended the statute to expressly provide that it did cover theft of honest services. In Skilling v. United
States, 130 S.Ct. 2896 (2010), this was challenged as void for vagueness. A majority of the Court held that the statute could be "saved" by a "narrowing construction," which construed it only to cover bribery and kickbacks, and not conflict of interest or anything else -- thus implicitly accepting that if broadly applied, the statute would indeed be void. At that, two Justices (Scalia and Thomas) said that the statute could not be saved, it was void for vagueness, period.

I'd think that the Texas statute is equally void. "Misuse" is no clearer than "honest," perhaps less so. We probably have a broader consensus on what is "dishonest" than on what is "misuse."

Leave a comment