Sorry, but just so I understand - what exactly was the “misinformation”? I’m not clear on what was either objectionable or incorrectly claimed to be untrue.
For anyone salty about the fact that a government owns your passports, I don’t have time to dig out a hundred statutes, but can you can refer to
The US government may only revoke passports for reasons of national security. Someone being behind on bills does not meet that criteria. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280
"In Haig v. Agee, the United States Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State has the authority to revoke a passport when the bearer’s activities abroad “**are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.” **
I did not get through the entire opinion, but don’t think it says what you think it says.
The question presented is whether the President, acting through the Secretary of State, has authority to revoke a passport on the ground that the holder’s activities in foreign countries are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or foreign policy of the United States.
The court was not asked to consider weather passports could be revoked on other grounds.
Freedom of travel is a right, it’s why any states license is valid in any others. Unfortunately republicans have upped id requirements to include passports in common occasions, so this is actually an attack on freedom of travel. But since Americans get off on punishment most of us won’t see a problem. Also because we’re stupid, just see any comment defending this move.
Removed by mod
This comment was reported for “Racism”
I have removed this comment, but not for that, as “Trustafarian” isn’t a race - it’s slang for “trust fund kids that live a hedonistic lifestyle”.
I removed it for misinformation.
Sorry, but just so I understand - what exactly was the “misinformation”? I’m not clear on what was either objectionable or incorrectly claimed to be untrue.
For anyone salty about the fact that a government owns your passports, I don’t have time to dig out a hundred statutes, but can you can refer to
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/51.7 and
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/passports-introducing-her-majestys-passport-office
For the US and UK.
Also, “Trustafarian” isn’t a race, it’s slang for rich kids that pretend to be poor and live a hedonistic lifestyle.
The US government may only revoke passports for reasons of national security. Someone being behind on bills does not meet that criteria. See Haig v. Agee, 453 U.S. 280
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/453/280/
https://commons.law.famu.edu/faculty-research/155/
"In Haig v. Agee, the United States Supreme Court held that the Secretary of State has the authority to revoke a passport when the bearer’s activities abroad “**are causing or are likely to cause serious damage to the national security or the foreign policy of the United States.” **
I did not get through the entire opinion, but don’t think it says what you think it says.
The court was not asked to consider weather passports could be revoked on other grounds.
The Supreme Court can make up whatever bullshit they want. They just gutted the Voting Rights Act, why not this too?
Yeah that’s why it was important to vote Dem in 16 but here we are.
The law in question was passed in 1996.
Freedom of travel is a right, it’s why any states license is valid in any others. Unfortunately republicans have upped id requirements to include passports in common occasions, so this is actually an attack on freedom of travel. But since Americans get off on punishment most of us won’t see a problem. Also because we’re stupid, just see any comment defending this move.
Freedom of travel is a 5th Amendment right inside the US only - you don’t have a right to move to France or Australia.