ever exceed the statutory maximum rate. Their failure to do so is significant for another reason as well. Three Supreme Court Justices have recently questioned Salerno’s "no set of circumstances” formulation of the facial challenge standard and suggested that a plaintiff can prevail on a facial challenge by merely showing the Act is unconstitutional in most cases. See City of Chicago v. Morales, - U.S. -, 119 S.Ct. 1849, 1858-59 n. 22, 144 L.Ed.2d 67 (1999) (plurality op.) (Stevens, J., Souter, J., and Ginsburg, J.); Janklow v. Planned Parenthood, 517 U.S. 1174, 1175 & n. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1582, 1583 & n. 1, 134 L.Ed.2d 679 (1996) (Memorandum respecting the denial of certiorari) (Stevens, J.). See also Florida League of Professional Lobbyists, Inc. v. Meggs, 87 F.3d 457, 459 (11th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). Because the plaintiffs have not shown the
recognizing that there is a high burden of proof created by the necessary deference to the pto recognizing disagreement among the justices concerning how high the threshold for facial invalidation should be set recognizing that the sentence imposed should be consistent with the protection of the public recognizing that the allegations of the complaint must be accepted as true on a threshold motion to dismiss recognizing that the only true commission portion of the salaries appears to be those amounts over the threshold level