Opinion ID: 106534
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Basic Principles.

Text: Since the validity of an Act of Congress is involved, we begin our analysis mindful that the function we are now discharging is the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called upon to perform. Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (separate opinion of Holmes, J.). This responsibility we here fulfill with all respect for the powers of Congress, but with recognition of the transcendent status of our Constitution. We deal with the contending constitutional arguments in the context of certain basic and sometimes conflicting principles. Citizenship is a most precious right. It is expressly guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which speaks in the most positive terms. [10] The Constitution is silent about the permissibility of involuntary forfeiture of citizenship rights. [11] While it confirms citizenship rights, plainly there are imperative obligations of citizenship, performance of which Congress in the exercise of its powers may constitutionally exact. One of the most important of these is to serve the country in time of war and national emergency. The powers of Congress to require military service for the common defense are broad and far-reaching, [12] for while the Constitution protects against invasions of individual rights, it is not a suicide pact. Similarly, Congress has broad power under the Necessary and Proper Clause to enact legislation for the regulation of foreign affairs. Latitude in this area is necessary to ensure effectuation of this indispensable function of government. [13] These principles, stemming on the one hand from the precious nature of the constitutionally guaranteed rights of citizenship, and on the other from the powers of Congress and the related obligations of individual citizens, are urged upon us by the parties here. The Government argues that §§ 401 (j) and 349 (a) (10) are valid as an exercise of Congress' power over foreign affairs, of its was power, and of the inherent sovereignty of the Government. Appellees urge the provisions' invalidity as not within any of the powers asserted, and as imposing a cruel and unusual punishment. We recognize at the outset that we are confronted here with an issue of the utmost import. Deprivation of citizenship particularly American citizenship, which is one of the most valuable rights in the world today, Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and Naturalization (1953), 235has grave practical consequences. An expatriate who, like Cort, had no other nationality becomes a stateless persona person who not only has no rights as an American citizen, but no membership in any national entity whatsoever. Such individuals as do not possess any nationality enjoy, in general, no protection whatever, and if they are aggrieved by a State they have no means of redress, since there is no State which is competent to take up their case. As far as the Law of Nations is concerned, there is, apart from restraints of morality or obligations expressly laid down by treaty . . . no restriction whatever to cause a State to abstain from maltreating to any extent such stateless individuals. 1 Oppenheim, International Law (8th ed., Lauterpacht, 1955), § 291, at 640. [14] The calamity is [n]to the loss of specific rights, then, but the loss of a community willing and able to guarantee any rights whatsoever . . . . Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951), 294. The stateless person may end up shunted from nation to nation, there being no one obligated or willing to receive him, [15] or, as in Cort's case, may receive the dubious sanctuary of a Communist regime lacking the essential liberties precious to American citizenship. [16]