Summary

Portrait of Charles Evans Whittaker Charles Evans Whittaker Staub v. City of Baxley — Opinion of the Court

It may be-but it certainly is not clearly so-that with little expenditure of time and effort, and with little risk of misreading appellant's charges, a court could determine exactly what it is about the Baxley ordinance that allegedly infringes upon appellant's constitutional rights. But rules are not made solely for the easiest cases they govern. The fact that the reason for a rule does not clearly apply in a given situation does not eliminate the necessity for compliance with the rule.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Charles Evans Whittaker Charles Evans Whittaker Staub v. City of Baxley — Opinion of the Court

It is settled by a long line of recent decisions of this Court that an ordinance which, like this one, makes the peaceful enjoyment of freedoms which the Constitution guarantees contingent upon the uncontrolled will of an official-as by requiring a permit or license which may be granted or withheld in the discretion of such official-is an unconstitutional censorship or prior restraint upon the enjoyment of those freedoms.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Charles Evans Whittaker Charles Evans Whittaker Staub v. City of Baxley — Opinion of the Court

The relevance of a state procedure requiring that constitutional issues be presented in their narrowest possible scope is confirmed by the practice of this Court. The Court has long insisted, certainly in precept, on rigorous requirements that must be fulfilled before it will pass on the constitutionality of legislation, on avoidance of such determinations even by strained statutory construction, and on keeping constitutional adjudication, when unavoidable, as narrow as circumstances will permit.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature