He and other UMich law students – not yet licensed attorneys – teamed up with civil litigation attorneys last month to challenge the governor in federal court, arguing that the COVID-19 travel ban “between residences” violates due process and equal protection clauses in both federal and state constitutions. [More]Or as the Supreme Court recognized in Dred Scott v. Sandford, a citizen has " the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation..."
I guess no one in authority wants that door reopened because they'd also have to recognize "full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
[Via Michael G]
1 comment:
So, the "full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went” really is not treated as stare decisis.
https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/us-government-and-civics/us-gov-interactions-among-branches/us-gov-legitimacy-of-the-judicial-branch/v/stare-decisis-and-precedent-in-the-supreme-court
Post a Comment