Uncivil Law
@uncivillaw·160K subscribers·3.8K videos
Law struck down for vagueness in US v. Davis
Posted
June 25, 2019
Views
735
Likes
27
Comments
5
Engagement
4.35%
June 25, 2019
735
27
5
4.35%
Every word spoken in this episode is indexed. Type any phrase to jump straight to the moment it was said.
Type any word or phrase that may have been spoken. Click a result to seek the player to that exact moment.
Try a name, a topic, or a quoted line
12:27Now PlayingDavis committed an armed robbery with a gun. The federal government charged him with a crime under 18 USC 922, relating to possession of a firearm and brandishing it during the robbery.
Davis appealed, arguing that his crime was not a "crime of violence" under the meaning of the of the statute. In particular, the statutes "residual clause", which is a catch-all provision designed to include conduct not otherwise specifically mentioned, was argued by Davis as being so unclear so that it should be void.
What are the standards for determining when a statue is clear, and when it is unconstitutional vague? The Supreme Court explores that issue in today's video!
Sentinel Indexing in Progress
Metadata and chapters are available. Claim extraction for this episode is pending.
All video content is delivered via YouTube embedded players in accordance with the YouTube Terms of Service. Sentinel provides research tools that promote discovery and accountability across political media.
