The US did this before; there was a Cold War-era law SCOTUS ruled unconstitutional in 1964.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aptheker_v._Secretary_of_State ("Aptheker v. Secretary of State" (1964))

> In Aptheker, the petitioner challenged Section 6 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, which made it a crime for any member of a Communist organization to attempt to use or obtain a passport.[1]"

Some expanded context,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_movement_under_Unit... ("Freedom of movement under United States law")

Good thing the current supreme court has such respect for precedent!

It's like 50/50 kind of balanced rulings - when precedent agrees with their agenda, they go with it, when it doesn't they go with their own thing.

Just like my wife treats my wishes.

They really care about stare decisis unless it doesn’t favor their agenda.

So this would mean that not only can you not enter the country if you make fun of Charlie Kirk but you now wouldn’t be able to leave as well?

It’s very obvious at this point that they are absolutely sure that they aren’t going to be “out of power” any time soon.

all signs are pointing to this - that these guys are not willing to be out of power soon.

from the white house redecorations, to the trump 2028 hats, to the gerrymandering going on in many states. capture of judiciary, suppression of free speech etc. the 'us' vs 'them' mentality.

In the end the question is: will democratic institutions hold? I think we won't know the answer until they don't.

I think it would be unprecedented in the US, and over the years the red flags have been increasing, so the signs aren't good - but not there yet.

What’s your favorite democratic institution? My favorite is separation of powers.

Would you say it’s holding?

No, separation of power isn't in great shape unfortunately.

But I don't think it has collapsed yet, or you think it has?

Mine is probably free speech, it's also not in a great shape either. But without separation of powers, free speech is quick to crumble into a precarious position.

I think rule of law is probably more fundamental. It's important that the powerful are held to account, and that's very difficult without rule of law.

But if no one enforces the law on the rulling power, the law doesn't work.

If there is no one who makes the laws, the law won't exist ;)

So we have the important three:

- judiciary

- law making by Legislature

- executive powers for enforcing law

It's one of the most important things to keep them separated and not interweaved. The three powers control each other and the fourth one controlling the controlling:

- journalism and it's covered investigations or whistleblowers

And then you need the rule of law that the law is the only law.

This ground pillars of democracy.

They can not leave power or they will all br prosecuted. They are all very motivated to work together and remain in power. It cant last forever. Individually they are too selfish, short sighted, and incompetent to rule for long.

They might have dreams of a 100 year 4th reich, but its not going to happen.

You’d think they would want people that disagree to leave so they could have more votes in their favor

I don’t think it’s going to much matter who you vote for moving forward, the results will be the same either way.

In the Corporate States of America, it never did.

"There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party; and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt, until recently, and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties." - Gore Vidal (1975 or before)

See also: https://elpidio.org/2025/07/12/the-state-of-the-union-gore-v... (original: "The State of the Union" May Day, May 1, 1975 in Esquire)

There is huge difference in reality right now and completely assymetric levels of radicalisation.

> There is huge difference in reality right now

Let's not confuse "huge differences" with huge emotional polarization over "small adjustments". Even on ICE tactics there aren't huge differences in method between Biden's and Trump's admins. The scales are different but the methods are the same, "administrative warrants" were upheld by SCOTUS and were/are used by both admins - as recently explained by IL Gov. Pritzker (D) on Jon Stewart's show.

> and completely asymmetric levels of radicalization.

I don't keep exacts stats but the numbers of politically-motivated murders seem to be very similar for both sides - it's a good argument in favor of rather symmetric levels of radicalization.

See, that's the fun part.

They're both equally as radicalized. They're just playing different roles.

One side are the enforcers and the other side are the enablers. They agree 100% on what they're doing, they just don't agree on how they're doing it.

But they both have been doing it for a long time now, it just so happens to have mostly been heaped upon those who do you not consider human.

This is just the chickens coming home to roost.

Yep. There's shit lite and ultra shit where some bet on ultra shit accelerating towards less shit and other believing ultra shit is really a fragrant utopia that smells like roses. Ultra shit really wants permission to start a civil war purge while shit lite is worried about magazine capacity and the "scary look" of forward grips while a flood of diarrhea is already ankle-deep.

They are just reaching for punishments that they think will stick. Removing someone’s citizenship for speech is too far outside of the overton window right now. But perhaps they can persecute political opponents this way. It’s a game of inches over many years.

They want people that disagree to stay so that an example can be made of them. The people who voted them the regime into office want to see those people suffer.

Who do you publicly flog or execute if all the bad guys leave of their own accord?

Turnabout is fair play when places like Unicorn Riot et al have done the same from the opposite direction.

False equivalence. Remind me what political power Unicorn Riot actually possesses compared to the party currently controlling the federal government. Unicorn riot hasn’t “done” anything because they don’t run the government.

Statements or actions taken by some fringe group are in no way equivalent to statements and actions taken by the actual government—which is currently being run based on fringe right wing ideology.

True equivalence, not false.

They had implicit support from the prior administration and their friendlies. They wouldn’t be touched and the prior administration used Unicorn Riot doxxing data to make adverse decisions against the doxxed individuals.

So I continue to maintain that similar actions taken wrt Charlie Kirk are only proper for what Unicorn Riot did to enable harassment.

Perhaps it might be a better idea to not allow doxxed data to be used for adverse decisions against people.

The Party of Free Speech, everyone.

Nice nickname :-D