Amendment is ambiguous and unconstitutionally vague, however, Pullman abstention is not appropriate in this case. First, defendant has not proffered any reasonable limiting construction of the Amendment to Article VIII that would resolve the federal constitutional issues in this ease. Second, abstention is not proper where a plaintiff makes a facial challenge to a state statute on First Amendment grounds. In Counts I and V, plaintiff claims that the State of Missouri lacks the power to impose the restrictions on candidacy for Congress provided in the Article VIII Amendment because imposed restrictions on candidacy for Congress violate Articles I and V of the United States Constitution. See, e.g., U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995) (<HOLDING>). Despite any ambiguities in the Amendment to
holding that the death penalty does not violate the prohibition against cruel punishments set forth in article 1 section 13 of the pennsylvania constitution holding that a state law violates article i when it has the likely effect of disadvantaging a class of candidates for national office and has the sole purpose of indirectly creating qualifications in addition to those set forth in article i holding that when a person entrusts effects to another and the police discover those effects in the others home by means of a search that violates article i section 9 the search also violates the entrustors rights under article i section 9 holding that when the type of insurance procured is not listed in article 2104 the article does not apply holding method of merchandising and nature of article causing injury more important than length of time dangerous article has been in area in which injury occurs