Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
nobody seems to be getting it yet. except maybe host.
Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
Chicago Coach Co. v. City of Chicago, 337 Ill. 200, 169 N.E. 22.
Stephenson v. Binford 287 U.S. 251, 264, et al.
Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 165 Cal. App.534, 547.
Schactman v. Dulles 96 App DC 287, 225 F2d 938, at 941.
Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, at 24.
Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.
Adams v. City of Pocatello, 416 P.2d 46, 48; 91 Idaho 99 (1966).
the above cases all have confirmed the undeniable right to freedom to travel, yet here we have a judge who either doesn't know the law, doesn't want to piss off louisiana law enforcement, too afraid to make such a 'huge' earth .shattering decision, or is setting an unconstitutional agenda. In any case, it shouldn't be a difficult decision to see that she needs to be removed.
|
No, you seem not to be "getting it"
Citizens typically sue government entities under section 1983, which are claims of violations of civil rights.
Given that there is no constitutional right to interstate travel, the judge can't rule in their favor on that basis. None of the cases you cited establish an "undeniable right" to interstate travel, merely one that is established by precendent...precendent the judge clearly stated she was aware of in her ruling!
The irony, of course, is that strict constructionists *have* to admit that since the right to travel is not clearly written in the constituation, then it is not a constituational right. If she were to rule the other way, then in order to be consistent, the places decrying her decision now should be clamoring that she is an activist judge--creating laws and rights from the bench. Yet, we know that such people are anything *but* consistent...
I'm going down the line on your cases...it would help if you'd provide your analysis for why the cases are relevant. As I've found is often the case with you from past threads like these, your articles/cites are likely irrelevant or contrary to the issue at hand.
The first case: regarding whether denying a passport to a citizen is appropriate...the end of the court's analysis is that one's freedom to travel should fall under the right to liberty...the rest of the argument extrapolates from this...however, this is as I stated earlier, a prime example of judges "interpreting" rights from the words written in the constitution which is evidently only acceptable when the constructionists complaining agree with the ruling...
of course, should we mention that the *end* of the legal argument engages with it's past rulings allowing the government to shut down travel in time of war and during times of imminent danger? nah...