[triage8004]

Isn't this directly violating the Constitution?

[sniffers]

I'm not sure the constitution matters that much to the party in charge at the moment.

[coderatlarge]

if nothing else, one has to give the ruling coalition credit for debugging the vaunted constitutional system. maybe the winning argument for the opposition will be to amend away all the vulnerabilities that were just exploited.

[TheFreim]

I can see particular applications of the law being unconstitutional, i.e. improper rationale for designating a group as being a foreign terrorist organization, but generally speaking I don't expect there would be any constitutional issue with preventing people charged with materially supporting terrorism from being able to flee the country using a passport.

Is there any section of the constitution that you think would be violated by the letter of the law?

[ranger_danger]

It seems people believe it to be a 1A violation, at least that was the consensus on many different reddit threads, but I have no idea if a judge would agree.

[duxup]

The SCOTUS majority has largely put their hands in their pockets and granted Trump more equal than others status so I'm not sure it would matter.