SOURCES OF AUTHORITY:

18*) Void for Vagueness Doctrine: https://freeornottobe.wordpress.com/2022/03/13/sources-of-authority-by-topic-subject-of-law/comment-page-1/#comment-95

VOID FOR VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: Any order or legislation which people of average intelligence differ on the meaning of, or cannot understand (what it requires or prohibits), is ’not a law’ (it’s ‘void for vagueness’), BECAUSE it is ‘to the Contrary’ of ‘The essential elements of due process’, by failing to give adequate notice (U.S.Supr.Ct), and to ‘The Interests of Justice’, and thus to the very Purpose of ‘the supreme Law’ too!
“The crime, and the elements constituting it, must be so clearly expressed that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue.” “It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment… is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined.” Connally vs. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385 (1926) ; Sewell v. Georgia, 435 U.S. 982 (1978) ; Winters v. People of State of New York, 333 U.S. 507;68 S.Ct. 665 (1948); and cases cited herein [famguardian.org/TaxFreedom/CitesByTopic/voidforvagueness.htm ; caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/269/385.html ]
"An unconstitutional act is not a law...it is...as inoperative as though it had never been passed", Norton v Shelby County (118 U.S. 425, 1886), US S.Ct.] ; 'an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void', 'worse than solemn mockery'. [Marbury v Madison (5 U.S. 137, 1803), US S.Ct.];
Any Law is 'Void’ for ‘Vagueness' when people of avg. intelligence would differ on the meaning of it, its ‘uncertain’ or ‘vague’, and any which let non-legislative officers determine its meaning or application without specific guidelines set by legislators. [Connally v General Construction Co. (269 U.S. 385, 1926), Grayned v City of Rockford (408 U.S. 104, 1972), Sewell v Georgia (435 U.S. 982, 1978). All U.S. Supreme Court, aka ‘US S.Ct’]
Without evidence of all three elements of a crime: Corpus Delicti/injury or harm, Mens Rea/Intent or inexcusable neglect as the cause, and Actus Reus/Violation of a written, valid, criminal, “Public Law” (Not ‘void for vagueness’ nor unconstitutional); ‘even with a confession’ a ‘conviction cannot be sustained’ without evidence ‘injury or harm’ (Loss, Threat, Endangerment, etc.) actually occurred (Corpus Delicti); [US Supreme Court, California vs San Pablo and Tulare Railroad Co., Allen v Wright, Tyler v Judges of Court of Registration, and others on 'Corpus Delicti' Doctrine].