Talk:Lambert v. California

Contention in relation to reason for this case being a counter-example of the maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
I agree with the following statement:

"This case is an exception to the legal principle ignorantia legis non excusat: the ignorance of the law is not a suitable excuse for breaking it."

I disagree with the premise:

Because it deals with the motives (or lack thereof) for committing a crime, the case addresses mens rea, the degree of legal culpability that arises from the motivation of a criminal.

I'm editing the premise to state the following, and we can scrap out this matter:

"Because it deals with the 'wholly passive' absence of knowledge of a law." Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It didn't pan out exactly as I had hoped, but the change has been made. To argue that it was related to a mens rea issue would be ignorant of what was going on in the case. Not only did a mens rea not exist with Lambert but she did not know the law in the first place. --Dennis Blewett (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)