Saturday, May 9, 2020

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),
(2) the right to be treated as a welcome visitor rather than a hostile stranger (protected by the "Privileges and Immunities" clause in Article IV, § 2), and
(3) (for those who become permanent residents of a state) the right to be treated equally to native-born citizens (this is protected by the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause; citing the majority opinion in the Slaughter-House Cases, Justice Stevens said, "the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment . . . has always been common ground that this Clause protects the third component of the right to travel.").

1 comment:

  1. The right to travel , freedom . The SJC has indeed supported such I must say it is the government who invokes standards outside of the rights we all have if we have a right to travel then why do we need a license to drive , what is a license ? do you subvert your right extinguishing your right by contact which you sign , the answer is yes . the simple fact when injustice becomes law resistance becomes duty . Right >> maybe not when the game is rig Take the Quorum perspective , currently the town meeting can be held and zero 0 voters show up , yet town has never voted in a zero quorum , The respect of a quorum ( voter public ) id secured by definitions , The town times ( rules of town meeting ) have 4 motion for Quorum , the statue for town meeting part 1 title VII chapter 43A section 5 meeting quorum compensation of members existence in real consideration ,to wit : Any representative town meeting ? A majority of the town meeting members ( voters ) shall constitute a quorum for doing BIZ , the question ? do we have a representative town meeting ? who voted for zero or in other words who voted out a quorum ? the answer is NO one has ever voted out a quorum at any town meeting their has never been a vote to eliminate a quorum of town members ( voters) The AG # 4 document even support the facts . NOW i realize as you should , that quorum is not merely a attendance standard its a tool to refuse to allow a qualified vote form the public by simply not going to meeting / which same effect as voting NO the real question is will the town zealots allow the respect of the many to be or not to be .? so the AG must get the question in end >>> : >)

    ReplyDelete