04-11-2007, 10:06 AM
|
#32 (permalink)
|
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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."
|
Maybe that justice can explain where in:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifth Amendment
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
|
...anything is said about interstate travel. I see grand jury, war trials, double jeopardy, self incrimination, due process, and eminent domain. As smooth stated, there is no explicitly stated constitutional right to travel within the country. If anything, the 10th Amendment might come into play (as nothing is specifically restricted in the Constitution), but that's a rather weak argument when one insists that free travel is constitutionally protected.
|
|
|