3. The State Law is Impermissibly Vague: The “provisions of the said statute,” the defense maintained, “are too vague, uncertain, and indefinite to provide an ascertainable standard of guilt, in contravention of the due process provision of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 

     The State’s brief made the standard arguments of the day in a standard way.  It tendered two basic arguments:^[104]

1. Limited Scope of Right to Assembly: The Fourteenth Amendment right of assembly urged by the Petitioners in Error is limited to “peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens to petition the legislature for a redress of grievances.”  It does not extend, by contrast, to “advocacy of the doctrines of armed mass action, insurrection and civil war for the violent and forcible overthrow and destruction of organized government, . . . which are the fundamental tenets of the Communist Party of America.” 

2. Valid Exercise of Police Power: “The right ‘peacefully to assemble,’” argued the Defendant in Error, “does not deprive the state of Michigan of the primary and essential right of self-preservation, nor does the Fourteenth Amendment limit the power of the State of Michigan to deal with crimes, and this is true even though the statute makes intent unnecessary as an element of the offense.”   

     The State’s reply brief was more alarmist than analytical.  Notably, it lacked any detailed discussion of how exactly Ruthenberg’s association with the Communist Party of America amounted to the kind of criminal syndicalism likely to produce a clear and present danger.