HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » IF any wonder: Freedom of... » Reply #30

Response to duckworth969 (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 3, 2022, 07:01 PM

30. So I went to this wiki page and you've chosen a quote based on pre-Civil War case law.

Most of the rest of the Wikipedia page lists how the Federal Government has supported and strengthened interstate travel rights. Here are some other quotes from further down the page:

"The U.S. Supreme Court in Crandall v. Nevada, 73 U.S. 35 (1868) declared that freedom of movement is a fundamental right and therefore a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them. In United States v. Wheeler. 254 U.S. 281 (1920), the Supreme Court reiterated its position that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to protect freedom of movement. However, Wheeler... was the first to locate the right to travel in the privileges and immunities clause, providing the right with a specific guarantee of constitutional protection.[8] By reasoning that the clause derived from Article IV of the Articles of Confederation, the decision suggested a narrower set of rights than those enumerated in Corfield, but also more clearly defined those rights as absolutely fundamental.[9] The Supreme Court began rejecting Wheeler's reasoning within a few years. Finally, in United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745 (1966), the Supreme Court overruled Chief Justice White's conclusion that the federal government could protect the right to travel only against state infringement.[2][3][10]"

and

"The U.S. Supreme Court also dealt with the right to travel in the case of Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (1999). In that case, Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, held that the United States Constitution protected three separate aspects of the right to travel among the states:

(1) the right to enter one state and leave another (an inherent right with historical support from the Articles of Confederation)..."

and

"A strong right to freedom of movement may yet have even farther-reaching implications. The Supreme Court has acknowledged that freedom of movement is closely related to freedom of association and to freedom of expression. Strong constitutional protection for the right to travel may have significant implications for state attempts to limit abortion rights, ban or refuse to recognize same-sex marriage, and enact anti-crime or consumer protection laws. It may even undermine current court-fashioned concepts of federalism.[15][16][17][18][19]"

----

All emphasis is mine, and God knows this SCOTUS wants to bring the country back to a pre-Civil War society. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a boatload of historical Constitutional and SCOTUS support FOR free and unfettered freedom of movement.

*Edited for dumb typos.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
elleng Aug 3 OP
PortTack Aug 3 #1
elleng Aug 3 #2
BidenRocks Aug 3 #12
Shermann Aug 3 #13
rubbersole Aug 3 #25
Hortensis Aug 3 #28
Hermit-The-Prog Aug 3 #3
PortTack Aug 3 #4
Ray Bruns Aug 3 #5
Shermann Aug 3 #15
Hermit-The-Prog Aug 3 #6
FSogol Aug 3 #7
PortTack Aug 3 #10
Lonestarblue Aug 3 #8
PortTack Aug 3 #11
LiberalFighter Aug 3 #17
paleotn Aug 3 #24
calimary Aug 3 #19
getagrip_already Aug 3 #21
wnylib Aug 3 #26
Lonestarblue Aug 3 #29
wnylib Aug 3 #34
liberalla Aug 3 #9
Purrfessor Aug 3 #14
bucolic_frolic Aug 3 #16
Volaris Aug 3 #18
hvn_nbr_2 Aug 3 #20
Warpy Aug 3 #22
duckworth969 Aug 3 #23
bronxiteforever Aug 3 #27
duckworth969 Aug 3 #31
bronxiteforever Aug 3 #33
LineLineNew Reply So I went to this wiki page and you've chosen a quote based on pre-Civil War case law.
intheflow Aug 3 #30
duckworth969 Aug 3 #32
Please login to view edit histories.