3 ms·
I've heard people across both reddit and HN claim that this violates 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, as well as Article IV of the Constitution. The First A
by ranger_danger 1y ago
I've heard people across both reddit and HN claim that this violates 1st, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments, as well as Article IV of the Constitution.
The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices. It guarantees freedom of expression by prohibiting Congress from restricting the press or the rights of individuals to speak freely. It also guarantees the right of citizens to assemble peaceably and to petition their government.
Article IV (Privileges and Immunities Clause): The Constitution's Article IV, which protects the rights of citizens in different states, has been interpreted as including the right to free movement between states.
Fifth Amendment (Due Process Clause): The Fifth Amendment's guarantee of liberty without being deprived of it without due process of law has also been cited by the Supreme Court as a basis for the right to travel, including international travel.
Ninth Amendment: This amendment protects certain fundamental rights not explicitly listed in the Constitution, including the right to travel.
14th Amendment (Equal Protection Clause): In Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), the Supreme Court recognized the right to travel as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which ensures equal treatment regardless of residency.
But I guess what really matters at the end of the day is what a judge interprets those laws to mean.
- pkilgore 1y agoWe don't even get that anymore. We get an unexplained shadow docket opinion overturning lower courts.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoOr a self-contradictory opinion that is 5-4 in the first half, and 5-4 in the second half, but they’re almost entirely different 5-4s (and god knows how ACB was able to split the difference and sign on to both). And somehow it’s the fault of the district courts if they can’t interpret this madness.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> The Constitution's Article IV, which protects the rights of citizens in different states, has been interpreted as including the right to free movement between states How is this remotely relevant? Is this AI slop?
- notfromhere 1y agoif you have the right to travel between internal states then there should be no reason you can't travel to other sovereign states.
- slt2021 1y agoMost importantly, no liberty of US citizens shall be limited without due process. This bill would allow State Dept (neocons Marco Rubio who just traveled to Israel and met their prime minister) a unilateral ability to revoke visas/passports of anyone without any due process, just through Marco Rubio’s discretion
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> bill would allow State Dept…a unilateral ability to revoke visas/passports of anyone without any due process The bill absolutely presents due process issues, at least for American citizens. (Visas are more complicated.) My point is the other references are hodgepodges of hallucinations.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> if you have the right to travel between internal states The relevant cases are Corfield and Paul [1]. They restrict states. Not the federal government. And since 1926, “the presidential administration” has explicitly had the power to “deny or revoke passports for foreign policy or national security reasons at any time.” [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_United_States_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Un...
- quantified 1y agoYou are downvoted for... I can't figure it out.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]