> So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine? Courts don't usually answer this que

> So if it had been worded differently, to make the relevant definitions part of the proposition, it would have been fine? Courts don't usually answer this question. They leave that up to future court cases. It would be really hard for a court to answer that question in the affirmative (that a law is totally sound and will hold up to all further legal scrutiny). The court case is always about specific things (a lawsuit will be brought around specific clauses in the law, and all the arguments in the court are going to be focused on those clauses). The court isn't examining the law as a whole, only the specific claims of the lawsuit. There is no way the court is going to be able to know all the possible arguments about a law without having them argued in front of them.