What is more “vague” than a “Best Interest of the Child” standard of evidence???

The states are claiming the Democrats introduced a “vague” aka unconstitutional provision under the American Rescue Plan, by stating that states cannot use the federal money, directly or indirectly, to cut taxes. Huh? Isn’t that exactly what federal grant money does for the states? A law can’t be vague because then no one knows what it is actually saying. A vague law allows the ones in charge to claim it says whatever they want it to say. The same thing happened when a California democrat introduced the “Best Interest of the Child” standard into law causing rampant UGI (unwarranted governmental interference) in our family and juvenile dependency courts. Judges in these courts abuse their power claiming the “Best Interest of the Child” allows them to use whatever they want …..to do….. whatever they want.