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.
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.
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.
Readit News
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.
It’s not the sort of thing that would go through reconciliation and thus it has roughly zero chance of becoming law anytime soon.
Is there any section of the constitution that you think would be violated by the letter of the law?