It still annoys me to no end that MSM refuses to link to the original source.
Here's the quote
> Authorizes the State Department to revoke passports to any individual who been charged, convicted, or determined to have knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
I can see particular applications of the law being unconstitutional, i.e. improper rationale for designating a group as being a foreign terrorist organization, but generally speaking I don't expect there would be any constitutional issue with preventing people charged with materially supporting terrorism from being able to flee the country using a passport.
Is there any section of the constitution that you think would be violated by the letter of the law?
It seems people believe it to be a 1A violation, at least that was the consensus on many different reddit threads, but I have no idea if a judge would agree.
if nothing else, one has to give the ruling coalition credit for debugging the vaunted constitutional system. maybe the winning argument for the opposition will be to amend away all the vulnerabilities that were just exploited.
The US political system isn't code, it's rich vs. poor. It only pretended to be "democratic" and "moral" for 250 years because the propaganda and triumphalism held more or less, but now it's reduced to a depraved, tin pot dictatorship because of slowly increased corruption due to uncorrected weaknesses even Kurt Gödel identified that were never addressed because the rich/powerful benefited from them.
It's also wishful thinking to suppose a corrupt, weak Congress would ever do anything to limit their own corruption. John McCain discovered there was zero appetite for reform.
It would take the sustained, coordinated efforts of many ~millions of people to peacefully* overthrow and reform a system which is entirely corrupt and unwilling to work for anyone not rich/powerful. Instead, at present, American voters are far too uninformed, uneducated, divided-and-conquered and/or demoralized in red/blue team bullshit factions to clearly characterize the situation they are in and the most correct response(s) to it. There will be no "progressive resurgence" through political means, but there could be corporate James Carville->Ezra Klein pseudo-progressive swing to the pretend, corporate left fronted by another wife cheater, Republican Lite (tm) like Gavin Newsom. Nothing will change.
* Those with the power will abuse it and direct illegality towards their enemies just like every dictator does. The hope is that extreme, excessive measures taken against peaceful people weakens their pillars of support. It doesn't always as in the cases of the Bonus Army, Occupy, or about 90% of peasant uprisings. Viet Nam and Gaza Hostage protests similarly also weren't effective enough.
i make a code analogy because i believe the US was intended as a country of ideas and laws and systems, as opposed to the legacy of arbitrary ruling classes and colonial extraction that it separated itself from. pessimistically one might worry there is simply no system of governance that can scale to this size population and still espouse the stated core values. optimistically one hopes that we could be just a few amendments away from a more perfect union that takes into account technology and mechanisms of communication like x/twitter etc that can allow a single person with access to sufficiently large capital reserves to interpose themselves between the people and their elected representatives.
I think this is the bill https://foreignaffairs.house.gov/news/press-releases/house-f...
It still annoys me to no end that MSM refuses to link to the original source.
Here's the quote
> Authorizes the State Department to revoke passports to any individual who been charged, convicted, or determined to have knowingly aided, assisted, abetted, or otherwise provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization.
So any US citizen against the Gaza genocide?
Isn't this directly violating the Constitution?
I can see particular applications of the law being unconstitutional, i.e. improper rationale for designating a group as being a foreign terrorist organization, but generally speaking I don't expect there would be any constitutional issue with preventing people charged with materially supporting terrorism from being able to flee the country using a passport.
Is there any section of the constitution that you think would be violated by the letter of the law?
It seems people believe it to be a 1A violation, at least that was the consensus on many different reddit threads, but I have no idea if a judge would agree.
I'm not sure the constitution matters that much to the party in charge at the moment.
if nothing else, one has to give the ruling coalition credit for debugging the vaunted constitutional system. maybe the winning argument for the opposition will be to amend away all the vulnerabilities that were just exploited.
Exploiting and debugging are not the same thing
without the exploit in hand few would believe the vuln was actionable if only because it hadn’t been used before.
The US political system isn't code, it's rich vs. poor. It only pretended to be "democratic" and "moral" for 250 years because the propaganda and triumphalism held more or less, but now it's reduced to a depraved, tin pot dictatorship because of slowly increased corruption due to uncorrected weaknesses even Kurt Gödel identified that were never addressed because the rich/powerful benefited from them.
It's also wishful thinking to suppose a corrupt, weak Congress would ever do anything to limit their own corruption. John McCain discovered there was zero appetite for reform.
It would take the sustained, coordinated efforts of many ~millions of people to peacefully* overthrow and reform a system which is entirely corrupt and unwilling to work for anyone not rich/powerful. Instead, at present, American voters are far too uninformed, uneducated, divided-and-conquered and/or demoralized in red/blue team bullshit factions to clearly characterize the situation they are in and the most correct response(s) to it. There will be no "progressive resurgence" through political means, but there could be corporate James Carville->Ezra Klein pseudo-progressive swing to the pretend, corporate left fronted by another wife cheater, Republican Lite (tm) like Gavin Newsom. Nothing will change.
* Those with the power will abuse it and direct illegality towards their enemies just like every dictator does. The hope is that extreme, excessive measures taken against peaceful people weakens their pillars of support. It doesn't always as in the cases of the Bonus Army, Occupy, or about 90% of peasant uprisings. Viet Nam and Gaza Hostage protests similarly also weren't effective enough.
i make a code analogy because i believe the US was intended as a country of ideas and laws and systems, as opposed to the legacy of arbitrary ruling classes and colonial extraction that it separated itself from. pessimistically one might worry there is simply no system of governance that can scale to this size population and still espouse the stated core values. optimistically one hopes that we could be just a few amendments away from a more perfect union that takes into account technology and mechanisms of communication like x/twitter etc that can allow a single person with access to sufficiently large capital reserves to interpose themselves between the people and their elected representatives.
The SCOTUS majority has largely put their hands in their pockets and granted Trump more equal than others status so I'm not sure it would matter.