[Political Junkie Too]

Now that a House Representative and a Senator have weighed in on this, is it worth mentioning the Constitution?

Article I Section 9

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

Question: Is denying cruise ships from sailing -- but not other ships -- giving preference to ports that don't harbor cruise ships over those that do?

If Congress wants to stop all cruise ships from sailing, wouldn't they have to stop all ships from sailing so as not to call out cruise ports over other ports for different treatment?

Or is singling out a class of ship, such as cruise ships, for no-sail across ALL ports in the nation enough to comply with the Constitution?

Or is singling out the class of cruise ships for no-sail really a bill of attainder because it de facto harms dedicated cruise ports over industrial ports with cruise docks?

-PJ

[SJackson]

Or is singling out the class of cruise ships for no-sail really a bill of attainder because it de facto harms dedicated cruise ports over industrial ports with cruise docks?

Interesting point. The three major lines should, in the name of charity, each assign a ship to Vera Cruz in alternate weeks to transport illegals to the US. Wouldn't be any opposition from dems in Congress, and the bill of attainder violation would be clear.