US Supreme Court FINALLY overrules "Korematsu"

Apr 2017
298
United Kingdom
#21
I might make the point that the "Muslim ban" does NOT apply to Saudi Arabia( where not so coincidentally, Trump has significant business interests), homeland of Islam and of ultra fundamentalist Wahhabism!


Terry
 

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,607
Sector N after curfew
#22
I agree with the majority. Despite the President's rhetoric as a candidate, the travel ban conforms to the statute perfectly.
Yet in the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission the US Supreme Court cited "elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward sincere religious beliefs" on the part of the Civil Rights Commission when the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It claimed that when a commissioner mentioned the indisputable fact that religion has been used to justify harmful actions, he was failing to display the "religious neutrality that must be strictly observed."

As Sotomayor points out, the rhetoric used before the travel ban was instituted was without question more hostile to a particular religion than anything that the commissioner had said. The court in Masterpiece Cakeshop also cited the fact that the commissioner's comments had not been subsequently disavowed. Sotomayor aligns this with the hostile statements made towards Muslims that were never disavowed. A clear line can be drawn between an "impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers" as demonstrated by those statements and the subsequent proclamation.

A multi-agency world wide study was made, and a few countries were found to be deficient in reporting data. These are the countries affected. It is objectively not a "Muslim ban", since it doesn't mention Muslims or Islam, and affects a small percentage of Muslims in any case (tMuslim countries in question hold only about 8% of all Muslims). All of these countries have been declared security risks by other administrations.
The review process was not overseen by a neutral party. As Sotomayor points out, it was lead by Frank Wuco, who promoted a blanket ban on allowing Muslims into the US as early as 2014. Moreover, that review process has been kept secret, and the only report on it comprises a mere 17 pages. From Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:

[T]he majority [opinion] empowers the President to hide behind an administrative review process that the Government refuses to disclose to the public. See IRAP II, 883 F. 3d, at 268 (“[T]he Government chose not to make the review publicly available” even in redacted form); IRAP v. Trump, No. 17–2231 (CA4), Doc. 126 (Letter from S. Swingle, Counsel for Defendants-Appellants, to P. Connor, Clerk of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Nov. 24, 2017)) (resisting Fourth Circuit’s request that the Government supplement the record with the reports referenced in the Proclamation). Furthermore, evidence of which we can take judicial notice indicates that the multiagency review process could not have been very thorough. Ongoing litigation under the Freedom of Information Act shows that the September 2017 report the Government produced after its review process was a mere 17 pages. See Brennan Center for Justice v. United States Dept. of State, No. 17–cv–7520 (SDNY), Doc. No. 31–1, pp. 2–3. That the Government’s analysis of the vetting practices of hundreds of countries boiled down to such a short document raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the President’s proclaimed national-security rationale.
I didn't find Justice Sotomayor's dissent "eloquent", rather I found it troubling.
You could elaborate on this, if you wish.

The president clearly has the authority, the proclamation is religiously neutral, case closed.
The president has the power to order an action in the interest of national security, but if the order is motivated by religious animus as I think this clearly was, then it should not pass constitutional review. If it comforts you to believe otherwise, so be it.
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,448
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#23
Yet in the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission the US Supreme Court cited "elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward sincere religious beliefs" on the part of the Civil Rights Commission when the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It claimed that when a commissioner mentioned the indisputable fact that religion has been used to justify harmful actions, he was failing to display the "religious neutrality that must be strictly observed."

As Sotomayor points out, the rhetoric used before the travel ban was instituted was without question more hostile to a particular religion than anything that the commissioner had said. The court in Masterpiece Cakeshop also cited the fact that the commissioner's comments had not been subsequently disavowed. Sotomayor aligns this with the hostile statements made towards Muslims that were never disavowed. A clear line can be drawn between an "impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers" as demonstrated by those statements and the subsequent proclamation.
One applies to an American citizen undergoing a supposed impartial hearing. His defense was his religious beliefs, which were mocked by commissioners.
That is not at all what this case is about. None of the people banned are American citizens, nor are they in any way subject to US law.
The proclamation never mentions religion. The countries affected hold only 8% of Muslims, meaning that 92% of Muslims are unaffected by the ban. The Presidents rhetoric aside, the proclamation does not amount to a ban on Muslims, clearly.


The review process was not overseen by a neutral party. As Sotomayor points out, it was lead by Frank Wuco, who promoted a blanket ban on allowing Muslims into the US as early as 2014. Moreover, that review process has been kept secret, and the only report on it comprises a mere 17 pages. From Sotomayor's dissenting opinion:
The "mere" 17 pages is far more than other presidents have offered as justification for the many travel bans imposed on various countries. Further, the statute does not require "a neutral party" (whatever that means).
Here is the relevant statute:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States
would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States, he may by proclamation, and for such period
as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants,
or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions
he may deem to be appropriate.”


The president has the power to order an action in the interest of national security, but if the order is motivated by religious animus as I think this clearly was,...
You may think this "clearly was", but 92% of Muslims are not affected. The proclamation itself doesn't mention religion, and not every country was Muslim. The real question is "does the EO violate the statute?" and the answer is "no".
Whether it violates the Establishment clause is a trickier question, but that argument hinges on section 1152, which states
“no person shall . . . be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s
race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of
residence.”
But this statute is narrower, and only applies to the issuance of visas, while 1182 says " immigrants or nonimmigrants," thus is broader, and applies to an earlier step in the process. \From the majority decision:
Sections 1182(f) and 1152(a)(1)(A) thus operate in different
spheres: Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens
who are admissible into the United States (and therefore
eligible to receive a visa). Once §1182 sets the boundaries
of admissibility into the United States, §1152(a)(1)(A)
prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant
visas based on nationality and other traits. The distinction
between admissibility—to which §1152(a)(1)(A) does
not apply—and visa issuance—to which it does—is apparent
from the text of the provision, which specifies only that
its protections apply to the “issuance” of “immigrant visa,”
without mentioning admissibility or entry. Had
Congress instead intended in §1152(a)(1)(A) to constrain
the President’s power to determine who may enter the
country, it could easily have chosen language directed to
that end.



...then it should not pass constitutional review. If it comforts you to believe otherwise, so be it.
But it did pass constitutional review, hence this thread. I wouldn't say I'm comforted, but I agree with the ruling as a matter of law. I think it would have set a bad precedent to invalidate an EO not because it was clearly illegal or unconstitutional, but to declare it unconstitutional based on the courts perception of the rationale behind the EO, regardless of what the statute reads. I think that moves us more toward the deplorable new journalistic standard of "sources familiar with his thinking".
 
Jan 2015
2,967
Rupert's Land ;)
#24
An amazing straw man you've constructed there. All would agree that it exemplifies wretched folly. One marvels at the savage, masterful strokes with which you've thrashed it. :cool:
Sorry, that comes off as an exuberance of hyperbole... :notrust:

It would be a ridiculous statement, if I had made it. You join Lord Fairfax, and infer something that I never said. He quoted only a portion of my post, which conveniently allowed him to address a false representation of that post.
Then please do expand on what you meant by "counter to the principles on which the US was supposedly founded"

The executive may invoke national security, however speciously, to justify actions <snip>
Yes correct.
In almost all cases, the executive can exercise his powers regarding national security, regardless of the logic or reasoning behind his actions, unless Congress prohibits him from doing so.
That's the way the system was designed.
the solution isn't for the Judiciary to wade in and start legislating the bureaucracy from the bench, it's for the legislative branch to provide a check on the executive's powers.


The president has the power to order an action in the interest of national security, but if the order is motivated by religious animus as I think this clearly was, then it should not pass constitutional review. If it comforts you to believe otherwise, so be it.
But it did pass constitutional review, hence this thread. I wouldn't say I'm comforted, but I agree with the ruling as a matter of law. I think it would have set a bad precedent to invalidate an EO not because it was clearly illegal or unconstitutional, but to declare it unconstitutional based on the courts perception of the rationale behind the EO, regardless of what the statute reads. I think that moves us more toward the deplorable new journalistic standard of "sources familiar with his thinking".

Excellent post by Botully.

The prior statement about a Muslim ban was certainly extremely ill advised (to say the least), but it isn't the basis of the travel ban.
Those opposed to the travel ban (and in favor of open borders) believe that it was religiously motivated, but it is in fact, largely based on those same countries that are state sponsors of terrorism, or where immigrants can't be properly vetted due to a breakdown in civil authority.

State sponsors of terrorism (in the past 15 years)
Iran.
North Korea.
Sudan.
Syria.
Cuba.
Iraq.
Libya.

Countries on Travel Ban.

Iran.
North Korea.
Sudan. (removed)
Syria.
Iraq. (removed)
Libya.
Chad
Venezuela
South Yemen.

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2017/trump-travel-ban-country-list-map/

Syria, Sudan, South Yemen and Libya are all troubled by internal strife that makes it tough to rely on their records when screening visa applicants.

Seems like the "travel ban" is based more on the State dept's own findings rather than excluding the major Muslim countries like Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
 

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,448
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#25
Not surprisingly, I agree with the above post.
I also would like to point out that the relevant statute says nothing about "national security". The standard is "Whenever the President finds that the entry...would be detrimental to the interests of the United States".
 

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,607
Sector N after curfew
#26
Yet in the recent decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission the US Supreme Court cited "elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward sincere religious beliefs" on the part of the Civil Rights Commission when the court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. It claimed that when a commissioner mentioned the indisputable fact that religion has been used to justify harmful actions, he was failing to display the "religious neutrality that must be strictly observed."

As Sotomayor points out, the rhetoric used before the travel ban was instituted was without question more hostile to a particular religion than anything that the commissioner had said. The court in Masterpiece Cakeshop also cited the fact that the commissioner's comments had not been subsequently disavowed. Sotomayor aligns this with the hostile statements made towards Muslims that were never disavowed. A clear line can be drawn between an "impermissible discriminatory animus against Islam and its followers" as demonstrated by those statements and the subsequent proclamation.
One applies to an American citizen undergoing a supposed impartial hearing. His defense was his religious beliefs, which were mocked by commissioners.
Cite any way in which the beliefs of the baker were mocked. Certainly the majority decision didn't make that claim, so I wonder where you got that notion.

That is not at all what this case is about. None of the people banned are American citizens, nor are they in any way subject to US law.
The proclamation never mentions religion. The countries affected hold only 8% of Muslims, meaning that 92% of Muslims are unaffected by the ban. The Presidents rhetoric aside, the proclamation does not amount to a ban on Muslims, clearly.
Persons applying for visas to enter the US do so under US law, so your claim that they aren't subject to US law is incorrect. The vetting process takes place under US law; the people who undergo the vetting process are subject to US law during that process. Perhaps you're trying to put this outside US law so that you can claim that the US Constitution isn't applicable to them. That's missing the point by a wide margin. The US government is subject to the US Constitution, and its actions can be questioned in regards to compliance with the Constitution.

The rhetoric used by those promoting this travel ban is relevant because it clearly displays an animus toward a particular religion. The public record demonstrates the fact that the travel bans were a result of an explicit attempt to make a Muslim ban "legal." The fact that when various iterations of this travel ban have come before courts they have been struck down should give anybody pause. Just because five current Supreme Court justices have ruled one way on the issue doesn't mean that the travel ban is constitutionally sound. History tells us that there are over 100 Supreme Court decisions that have been overturned by subsequent courts.

The review process was not overseen by a neutral party. As Sotomayor points out, it was lead by Frank Wuco, who promoted a blanket ban on allowing Muslims into the US as early as 2014. Moreover, that review process has been kept secret, and the only report on it comprises a mere 17 pages.
The "mere" 17 pages is far more than other presidents have offered as justification for the many travel bans imposed on various countries. Further, the statute does not require "a neutral party" (whatever that means).
Here is the relevant statute:
“Whenever the President finds that the entry of any
aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States
would be detrimental to the interests of the United
States, he may by proclamation, and for such period
as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all
aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants,
or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions
he may deem to be appropriate.”
There is no provision for a review process in the section you quote, and I wasn't claiming that there was any statutory necessity for a review. What I was pointing out is that the review process that the majority decision cites as support for the travel ban is highly questionable. Did you bother to look at the link that I provided? In view of Frank Wuco's multiple public statements, it was a foregone conclusion that any review that he lead would agree with whatever travel ban was put in place as long as it was primarily intended to exclude Muslims from entry. The idea that he would come back with any other conclusion is fanciful. The review process was never intended to be anything but a rubber stamp.

The president has the power to order an action in the interest of national security, but if the order is motivated by religious animus as I think this clearly was,...
You may think this "clearly was", but 92% of Muslims are not affected. The proclamation itself doesn't mention religion, and not every country was Muslim. The real question is "does the EO violate the statute?" and the answer is "no".
Whether it violates the Establishment clause is a trickier question, but that argument hinges on section 1152, which states
“no person shall . . . be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of the person’s
race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of
residence.”
We know from the public record that the intention was to institute a travel ban on Muslims. The reason it doesn't mention religion is because it was tailored in an attempt to avoid being blatantly unconstitutional.

But this statute is narrower, and only applies to the issuance of visas, while 1182 says " immigrants or nonimmigrants," thus is broader, and applies to an earlier step in the process. \From the majority decision:
Sections 1182(f) and 1152(a)(1)(A) thus operate in different
spheres: Section 1182 defines the universe of aliens
who are admissible into the United States (and therefore
eligible to receive a visa). Once §1182 sets the boundaries
of admissibility into the United States, §1152(a)(1)(A)
prohibits discrimination in the allocation of immigrant
visas based on nationality and other traits. The distinction
between admissibility—to which §1152(a)(1)(A) does
not apply—and visa issuance—to which it does—is apparent
from the text of the provision, which specifies only that
its protections apply to the “issuance” of “immigrant visa,”
without mentioning admissibility or entry. Had
Congress instead intended in §1152(a)(1)(A) to constrain
the President’s power to determine who may enter the
country, it could easily have chosen language directed to
that end.


As detailed in Sotomayor's dissent, Congress has already addressed those national-security concerns.

Congress has already addressed the national-security concerns supposedly undergirding the Proclamation through an “extensive and complex” framework governing “immigration and alien status.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. 387, 395 (2012).[7] The Immigration and Nationality Act sets forth, in painstaking detail, a reticulated scheme regulating the admission of individuals to the United States. Generally, admission to the United States requires a valid visa or other travel document. 8 U. S. C. §§1181, 1182(a)(7)(A)(i)(I), 1182(a)(7)(B)(i)(II). To obtain a visa, an applicant must produce “certified cop[ies]” of documents proving her identity, background, and criminal history. §§1202(b), 1202(d). An applicant also must undergo an in-person interview with a State Department consular officer. §§1201(a)(1), 1202(h)(1), 22 CFR §§42.62(a)–(b) (2017); see also 8 U. S. C. §§1202(h)(2)(D), 1202(h)(2)(F) (requiring in-person interview if the individual “is a national of a country officially designated by the Secretary of State as a state sponsor of terrorism” or is “a member of a group or section that . . . poses a security threat to the United States”). “Any alien who . . . has engaged in a terrorist activity,” “incited terrorist activity,” or been a representative, member, or endorser of a terrorist organization, or who “is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity,” §1182(a)(3)(B), or who has committed one or more of the many crimes enumerated in the statute is inadmissible and therefore ineligible to receive a visa. See §1182(a)(2)(A) (crime of moral turpitude or drug offense); §1182(a)(2)(C) (drug trafficking or benefiting from a relative who recently trafficked drugs); §1182(a)(2)(D) (prostitution or “unlawful commercialized vice”); §1182(a)(2)(H) (human trafficking); §1182(a)(3) (“Security and related grounds”).
...then it should not pass constitutional review. If it comforts you to believe otherwise, so be it.
But it did pass constitutional review, hence this thread. I wouldn't say I'm comforted, but I agree with the ruling as a matter of law. I think it would have set a bad precedent to invalidate an EO not because it was clearly illegal or unconstitutional, but to declare it unconstitutional based on the courts perception of the rationale behind the EO, regardless of what the statute reads. I think that moves us more toward the deplorable new journalistic standard of "sources familiar with his thinking"
.
Again, I refer you to the reasoning underlying the court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. The decision doesn't address the Commission's rationale, nor does your "new journalistic standard of 'sources familiar with his thinking'" come into it. The decision hinges on is what was said by people responsible for the action being addressed by the court. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court cites the commissioner referring to harmful actions being justified by religion (not mocking the baker's religion, nor even mocking any religion at all). The court stated plainly that the commissioner's words showed that the obligation of religious neutrality had not been fulfilled. The multiple negative statements issued previous to (as well as after) the institution of the travel bans show an undeniable lack of religious neutrality. The court in this decision appears to be operating under a double standard.
 
Last edited:

Recusant

Ad Honorem
Sep 2009
2,607
Sector N after curfew
#27
It would be a ridiculous statement, if I had made it. You join Lord Fairfax, and infer something that I never said. He quoted only a portion of my post, which conveniently allowed him to address a false representation of that post.
Then please do expand on what you meant by "counter to the principles on which the US was supposedly founded"
I appreciate your decision to modify your approach. I think it's always a good practice if unsure what your interlocutor is referring to; ask for clarification.

The overarching principle is equality under the law. Under that, specifically there is the principle of neutrality in regards to religion. I think that the "Muslim ban" violates both of those principles. In my post I cited Justice Sotomayor's dissent from the opinion of the court. I will note here that nowhere have I advocated that "every foreign national has an automatic right to demand entry into US territory" nor does Sotomayor advocate any such thing.

It would have been worthwhile to have considered my source to understand the basis of my post, if there was a willingness to engage in a reasonable discussion of this topic. Alternatively, to make rash accusations based on unwarranted assumptions generally proves thoroughly unproductive.

The executive may invoke national security, however speciously, to justify actions <snip>
Yes correct.
In almost all cases, the executive can exercise his powers regarding national security, regardless of the logic or reasoning behind his actions, unless Congress prohibits him from doing so.
That's the way the system was designed.
the solution isn't for the Judiciary to wade in and start legislating the bureaucracy from the bench, it's for the legislative branch to provide a check on the executive's powers.
One of the primary reasons for the existence of the Supreme Court is to provide a check and balance on both the legislative and the executive branch. Some people may not like this fact, but it is the way the system is actually designed. In this instance I think that the court has failed in its duty.

Excellent post by Botully.

The prior statement about a Muslim ban was certainly extremely ill advised (to say the least), but it isn't the basis of the travel ban.
On what evidence do you make that statement?

Those opposed to the travel ban (and in favor of open borders) believe that it was religiously motivated, but it is in fact, largely based on those same countries that are state sponsors of terrorism, or where immigrants can't be properly vetted due to a breakdown in civil authority.
The US does its own vetting of prospective immigrants, which is thorough and effective. See the article by former immigration officer Natasha Hall describing the process in detail.

Seems like the "travel ban" is based more on the State dept's own findings rather than excluding the major Muslim countries like Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
Given that there is already an effective process in place for vetting immigrants, the travel ban is superfluous and over-broad, in my opinion. There are without question many people who have legitimate reasons to claim asylum who have been blocked from that opportunity needlessly. In addition, the states you mention are considered allies, and applying the ban to them would have very likely destroyed that relationship, not to mention commercial interests which I strongly suspect were considered.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2010
4,770
DC
#28
By my limited understanding, the Colorado Baker decision did not invalidate the underlying statutes and laws, just that particular decision.

With the so called Muslim ban, I know the Obama image protectors will disagree but we already had a form of extra-review written based on national origin of otherwise duel nationals of VWP countries. That national origin discrimination existed since the early 1990&#8217;s ( trust me ;) ) , they just formalized it and added VWP nationals too.

I do not see this new ban but as layer stating that there are certain countries who do not provide sufficient information about their passport holders nor vouch for the authenticity of such documents.

Not every policy we dislike is unconstitutional.
 
Last edited:

botully

Ad Honorem
Feb 2011
3,448
Amelia, Virginia, USA
#29
Cite any way in which the beliefs of the baker were mocked. Certainly the majority decision didn't make that claim, so I wonder where you got that notion.
You are correct, disparaged would have been a better word.


Persons applying for visas to enter the US do so under US law, so your claim that they aren't subject to US law is incorrect. The vetting process takes place under US law; the people who undergo the vetting process are subject to US law during that process. Perhaps you're trying to put this outside US law so that you can claim that the US Constitution isn't applicable to them. That's missing the point by a wide margin. The US government is subject to the US Constitution, and its actions can be questioned in regards to compliance with the Constitution.
But the travel ban doesn't apply to people who have entered the visa process. It applies before that, so no, a citizen of Yemen who desires to enter the US is not, by that fact alone, subject to US law.
The claim of hardship from religious bias is brought by those in the US, subject to its laws, who cannot reunite with relatives.

History tells us that there are over 100 Supreme Court decisions that have been overturned by subsequent courts.
And many more have not. Irrelevant.


There is no provision for a review process in the section you quote, and I wasn't claiming that there was any statutory necessity for a review. What I was pointing out is that the review process that the majority decision cites as support for the travel ban is highly questionable. Did you bother to look at the link that I provided? In view of Frank Wuco's multiple public statements, it was a foregone conclusion that any review that he lead would agree with whatever travel ban was put in place as long as it was primarily intended to exclude Muslims from entry. The idea that he would come back with any other conclusion is fanciful.
Since the only standard is "The president finds", none of this really matters. Sometimes there is no formal finding at all, merely a few sentences stating the new policy.

The review process was never intended to be anything but a rubber stamp.
Opinion is not fact.

We know from the public record that the intention was to institute a travel ban on Muslims. The reason it doesn't mention religion is because it was tailored in an attempt to avoid being blatantly unconstitutional
A travel ban on Muslims that leaves 92% unaffected is not a travel ban on Muslims.


As detailed in Sotomayor's dissent, Congress has already addressed those national-security concerns.
Irrelevant, and the majority disagreed.


Again, I refer you to the reasoning underlying the court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. The decision doesn't address the Commission's rationale, nor does your "new journalistic standard of 'sources familiar with his thinking'" come into it. The decision hinges on is what was said by people responsible for the action being addressed by the court. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court cites the commissioner referring to harmful actions being justified by religion (not mocking the baker's religion, nor even mocking any religion at all). The court stated plainly that the commissioner's words showed that the obligation of religious neutrality had not been fulfilled. The multiple negative statements issued previous to (as well as after) the institution of the travel bans show an undeniable lack of religious neutrality. The court in this decision appears to be operating under a double standard.
Not at all the same thing.
What if our commissioners conducted a religiously neutral, unbiased, and to all appearances fair hearing. But one of our commissioners had previously made public statements disparaging Christianity and its adherents. By your logic, that fact would invalidate the hearing, regardless of how impartial it seemed.
I find this sort of "divining of motive" troubling, and so should you.

If President Obama had issued the exact same proclamation, would it have been unconstitutional?
A legal proclamation is a legal proclamation, and so the court found. Yes, we have a system of checks and balances, but there must also be deference to the other branches. The Court can't usurp a power which by statute and precedent belongs to the executive based on suspicions of motive.
 

Bart Dale

Ad Honorem
Dec 2009
6,662
#30
That the travel ban was ill advised and not a good idea does not make in unconstitutional.

The right of liberty, of freedom of person, is guarantee by the Constitution. The right to travel to foreign country you want is not.
 

Similar History Discussions