down under the identical elements as is a unique situation in that the statute viewed in isolation is perfectly constitutional only when that sack shoot is compared to another but the identical elements problem urges therefore it makes no judgment about which of those two rational penalties the general assembly has to choose in this case the general assembly chose to penalize the criminal conduct in question under the firearm enhanced minutes of the armed statute and the only way to give effect that legislative determination was to amend the armed violence statute so that's what the general assembly did and we know from this court's decision in clemens that on bribery with a firearm is now proportion penalties clause is void of an issue to the extent that that applies to statutes found unconstitutional under the identical elements test the court used imprecise language in that case because a statute does violates the proportion penalties  under the identical element status is not necessarily invalid from the moment of it's an accident and void of an issue of both on its face and is applied in this court's precedent means the statute is no from its inception void invalid from the moment of it's an act it's easy to conceive of a situation where the general assembly passes a valid constitutional criminal statute there are convictions under that statute their sentences handed down and the general assembly then subsequently creates a new crime with identical elements in a lesser penalty at that point the first time would be unconstitutional under the proportionate penalties clause if the court conducted an identical elements analysis would find the first crime had identical elements and a greater penalty but all of the convictions  recognized amendments to statutes that have been declared void of an issue in fact defendant argues that the only way to revive such a statute statute was void for purposes of legislative action when it's would have an issue then then there would be a there to be amended the people argue that any time the general assembly acts to cure a constitutional defect in a statute it revives the unconstitutional statute and that rule advances several important interests of mentioned we know from clemens that on bribery with a firearm is now a constitutional statute and there's no valid reason for this court to deny enforcement of that valid statute at this point and third it's easy for the lower courts to apply consistently we can tell from the sheer number of cases that have emerged on this issue that the lower courts looked at the criminal code as probably drafted saw that armed robbery with a firearm is now a constitutional ballot statute there is no identical elements problem and they naturally began insourcing and sentencing under those firearm enhanced mens defendant's proposed rule which relies on the arbitrary distinction of whether the general assembly amends the statute in question or the statute being compared with swartz legislative intent it says to the general assembly we asked you to choose between these two options you chose but were not going to give effect to that choice it forces the court to deny  enforcement of an otherwise valid statute and it risk creating confusion and inconsistent application of the law because it says the courts you see the statute you see that it is valid but before you can in force it need to comb through the legislative history to determine whether the legislative vehicle that was used to create this valid statute was the appropriate legislative vehicle the defendant has identified a couple of cases that he says support his arbitrary rule but the details that he focuses on in these cases are just coincidental to the outcome of those cases they're not fundamental to the reasoning that the court relied on first off the in house child this court found that public at ninety one four  n again the amendment in man well it is true did not amend the statute in question and it was found not to revive that statute but it also didn't cure the sentencing disparity between the two statutes and that's a was being considered under cross comparison not identical elements but but it didn't cure the constitutional defect that's why it didn't revive the statute in question and that's revealed by often the amendment that did eventually revive the statute  actually increased the sentencing disparity but it also amended a different section of of the controlled substance that to make it clear that that sentencing discrepancy was based on a legislative determination and it was that statement of legislative purpose that revive the statute in question not the amendment to the statute that actually increased the discrepancy that this put on them constitutional the court relied heavily the appellate court relied heavily on this course decision and people versus manual in which this court found that disproportionate act had to be acted upon itself in order to be revived in fact i could find no case were knacked that had been found unconstitutional under the disproportionate penalties clause had been revived without acting on the statute itself this is the first time where the legislature has attempted to revive a statute by simply acting on a comparison statute without acting on the unconstitutional higher penalty statute itself that is contrary to the court decisions emanuel as i mentioned previously this court found that it was not enough to act in the comparison statute later in the statute at issue  manual was section four four of the controlled substances act which was had a disproportionate penalty two sections for a one or two of the act the legislature remedy that problem that disparity by acting on section four four itself and including a preamble in the public act explaining that in it intended for that section to have a penalty that was comparable to the penalty for the other two acts so that is really how the legislature case it is a rule that will promote sound policy because it is a rule that promotes clarity there will be no question as to whether a statute has been revive legislature reprints the statute with some indication that it intends to revive that statute if the legislature had done that in this case we would not be before the court arguing  the state or use that for example the statute but it was perhaps ok prior to the time that armed violence became a crime  different penalties and therefore the statute in fact was not void have an issue did we use that term in washington in describing what happened there and the process of reviving a statue yes thank you for the question justice carbery the to clarify it in this case both the disparity arose at the same time because a firearm sentencing enhancement and the revival of the arm violence has provided a hypothetical where a statute is valid for many years say and then is rendered unconstitutional because of a proportionality problem that arises from the later an act statute in that case the void ab initio doctrine still applies it just simply applies from when the proportionality problem arose anything the the period of time that the statute was a valid was durango yet you would suspect when you we agree with your position that the legislature will act quickly to reenact section he seemed to be when you yes your honor i would think so but you're just saying that not be here of the legislature had done what it did when it reenact the section for a four even with the perhaps unintended revival of the armed violence that you it acted on that statute itself and it would also eliminate the need for the courts to scour the legislative history to find out whether one statutes legislative debates have somehow revived a different statute it would also eliminate arguments about whether they have been implicit revivals and it's a bright line rule it's simple to follow it would place very very small burden on the legislature as this court ha to the intent expressed by the legislature in this case it would be contrary to these court's prior decisions and again as a matter of policy it would actually promote amended a statute but it amended the wrong statute so it made it the legislature does make mistakes inmate it may unintentionally revive a statute under  be clear to everybody the courts that and the parties that that legislature intended to revive the statute and restated it reprinted the statute making it very clear that that is what the legislature intended it's a simple rule easy to follow and it would eliminate confusion for these reasons your honor i would ask the your honour's there's a dialogue between the court and the general assembly that is taken place that takes place in an identical and situation generally and whenever statues declared unconstitutional and in this case the general assembly is to me the court says to the general assembly you have to choose between these two rational options and how shall the court said you have to choose between armed robbery with a firearm in armed violence and the call compliant and the general assembly complied with that it need that  choice and defendant now says that this court she said the general assembly well that's still not good enough either the court would have said the general somewhere you have to make the other choice and amend armed robbery choose on violence which this court says it doesn't make those judgments and  aces or the court would have to say the general assembly you made the choice we asked you to make you chose on violence but that's still not enough you also need to pass a wholly meaningless amendment to the armed robbery statute in order to give effect to your choice  so so the dialogue that's been engaging between the general assembly in the court in this court's precedent would be defendants proposal would would conflict with that with that dialogue and that precedent  it is true that in this case to address another of defendant's points that in this case the identical almonds problem a merge at the moment of a nap meant of the firearm in hansen's but of course the court needs to adopt a rule that will be a amounts president defendant's responses well that's ok in the state's hypothetical the first statute is void of initio from the time of the second statutes anathema but both in the plain meaning of the term void have an issue and as used by this court  its president that's not void of an issue a void an issue means no from the point of its inception invalid from the time of it's an action to turn quickly back to men well the defendant asserted that that subsequently and before the court's decision in opt in the general assembly took action on section four all four that resolve the constitutional problem it did take action on section of four it took action on section four of four that actually exacerbated the identified constitutional problem it also took action on section one hundred of the controlled substances act and that resolve the constitutional problem and revive section four  four there's been some debate about which rules the people who oppose rule that any time the general assembly acts to cure a constitutional defect it revives the unconstitutional statute or petitioners rule promotes  clarity under the people's will the lower court would have to look only to the statutes that are on the books look at the statutes themselves to determine whether they are valid statutes if there is statute doesn't violate the proportion and all these cause if there's no identical elements problem then you can enforce this valid statute it is under the defendant's proposed rule that the lower courts would have to scour the legislative history  order to determine whether the proper vehicle was used to revive a statute it is true in this case that senator cullerton statements for example are further evidence that the general assembly that the general assembly intended to revive the statute i'm so so under the people who oppose rule of the lower courts would simply have to apply the statutes that are on the books in that don't have a constitutional problem  durango we court thank you for your arguments today case number one one for one to two people vs blair is taken under advisement as agenda number seven