Your honors, I love to fuck.

I love to fuck on the table, on the floor, on

the kitchen sink, on the sofa, on my bed, on my maids bed, on your
grandmas bed. But your honors, I stand here to resolve the following
issues and hopefully put them to clarity by the end of this submission:
1. Does the police power of the state include the power to promote
religious solidarity?
2. Does sections 2, 3, and 5 of RA XBYZ violate the bill of rights?
3. Is the religious solidarity Act constitutional?
Good evening your honors,
May I appease the court, I am princess Dayana Pacasum , appearing as
legal counsel for the petitioner.
The Legal issues that we will be submitting with regards to the
constitutionality of the Religious Solidarity Act are the following:
1. The police power of the state does not include the power to
promote religious solidarity.
2. That Sections 2, 3, and 5 of RA XBYZ violates the Bill of Rights.
3. That The Religious Solidarity Act is unconstitutional.
Police Power
Police Power as defined by Chief Justice Shaw, the power vested in the
legislature by the constitution to make, ordain, and establish all manner of
wholesome and reasonable laws, statutes, and ordinances, either with
penalties or without, not repugnant to the constitution, as they shall judge to be
for the good and welfare of the commonwealth, and of the subjects of the
same.
Also it rests upon public necessity and upon the right of the state and of the
public to self-protection. For this reason, its scope expands and contracts with
changing needs. 1
One of the basic purposes of Police Power is to promote the general
welfare, comfort and convenience of the people.2

Whereas the RSL has for its context the promotion of solidarity among
all religions wherein the state shall institute MEASURES and INCENTIVES
to bring people of different faith together so that they can understand
each other and pursue dialogue instead of conflict.

a) Sections 2, 3, and 5 of RA XBYZ violates the Bill of Rights.

b) The Religious Solidarity Act is unconstitutional.
Rational Basis/Deferential View
Srtict Scrutiny Test
Void for Vagueness Doctrine
The law is unconstitutional, because it uses language that is
overbroad, and language that is too vague. In other words, it
violates the overbreadth doctrine and the void for vagueness
doctrine in constitutional law.
The overbreadth doctrine holds that if a law is so broadly written
that it deters free expression, then the Supreme Court will strike
it down. The vagueness doctrine refers to a law that provides a
punishment without specifying what conduct is punishable, and
therefore the law is void because it violates due process.
Among the provisions of the Religious Solidarity Act that are too
broad or too vague are: