This is, of course, very upsetting for the obvious reasons. However, there's a second aspect to this that is (IMO) equally infuriating. Which is that even when the Supreme Court rules on something, which (credit where credit is due) has always done its best in making rulings as clear as possible for future similar cases, that politicians (of any party really) will still find a way around it.
In 1868 (Crandall v. Nevada) the Supreme court ruled that: "a state cannot inhibit people from leaving the state by taxing them."
Sure, maybe the word "tax" can be up for debate (although IMO taking someone's personal information is a tax). But if you look at point 8 at this link:
It states that during the ruling, The Supreme Court ruled that: "8. The citizens of the United States have the correlative right to approach the great departments of the government, the ports of entry through which commerce is conducted, and the various federal offices in the states."
The "tax" inhibit this right.
It is now 2018 (150 years later) and we have simply replaced the word "tax" with a different obstacle, which functions in the same way: inhibiting the freedom of movement for those who don't (or can't) comply.
Sure, maybe the word "tax" can be up for debate (although IMO taking someone's personal information is a tax). But if you look at point 8 at this link:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/73/35/
It states that during the ruling, The Supreme Court ruled that: "8. The citizens of the United States have the correlative right to approach the great departments of the government, the ports of entry through which commerce is conducted, and the various federal offices in the states."
The "tax" inhibit this right.
It is now 2018 (150 years later) and we have simply replaced the word "tax" with a different obstacle, which functions in the same way: inhibiting the freedom of movement for those who don't (or can't) comply.