Comment by jmyeet

Oh, sweet summer child. The Constitution isn't a magical defense against tyranny. It's a piece of paper. Nine political actors are in charge of its interpretation and they're not above completely inventing new parts to it. The presidential immunity decision will go down in history up there with the Dred Scott decision and it's particularly ironic because it makes the president an unaccountable monarch in a country that revolted against monarchy.

Let me give you a good analogy for this particular issue: anti-BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanctions) legislation.

40+ years ago public pressure to mount against apartheid South Africa and it was incredibly successful as a global movement that culminated in toppling the regime.

You know who didn't like BDS? Israel, who interestingly was also a close of South Africa at the time. Why? Because it realized it was susceptible to the same pressure and was (and is) an apartheid state.

So a deep lobbying effort began to pass various bills to ban BDS movements. Roughly 35-38 states have so-called anti-BDS laws. In Texas, for example, you cannot be a public teacher without signing a contract agreeing to never boycott the state of Israel [1].

Is this a clear violation of free speech? Of course it is. Remember that the Fthe First Amendment is a restriction on the government restricting speech and anti-BDS legislation clearly does that.

So why is it still legal? Because courts have essentially decided that anti-BDS laws block commerce not speech and that's not a protected activity. Or rather there's (apparently) no way to determine speech from commerce.

See what I mean when I say the constitution doesn't mean as much as you think it does?

Remember too that this is the same country whose courts ruled that a Colorado law banning discrimination of same sex couples was unconstitutional because it violated the "rights" of someone for a hypothetical cake nobody asked them to make and a hypothetical website business that didn't exist making a hypothetical business nobody asked for.

So how's that relevant here? Because I can easily see the courts ruling this way: Global Entry is travel. Removing you doesn't ban your movement or restrict your speech. You can still travel to and from the country and interstate. You just have to go in the longer TSA line. Therefore it's not a restriction on speech.

[1]: https://mondoweiss.net/2019/04/federal-teacher-striking/