Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
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...
|
I get tired of having to spank you when you're wrong.
In Kent v. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958), the United States Secretary of State had refused to issue a passport, based on the suspicion that the plaintiff was going abroad to promote communism. Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the Court:
"The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty' of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . .
Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, . . . may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values."
Now, to most people like yourself, you like to assume that you only have rights when the supreme court says you do. This would be wrong on your part and it is part of the big problem in this country today. Did the right to freedom of movement suddenly spring in to being in 1958? Not bloody likely, in fact, in Shapiro v Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969), Justice Stewart noted in a concurring opinion that "it is a right broadly assertable against private interference as well as governmental action. Like the right of association, ... it is a virtually unconditional personal right, guaranteed by the Constitution to us all."