Replies

Perhaps whomever decides if an individual goes on the list must first present the name as well as the proof to a panel of some sort who can then weigh the evidence after which, if it has been agreed the individual should go on the list, they would be informed of the decision as well as being provided with the evidence in order that they can, if they choose, contest the findings.

Absolutely not.
A "panel" to decide your fate? A panel to which you are "allowed" to plead your case? There is a solid reason our Constitution requires the state to prove their case to a duly selected jury. Your suggestion is that reason. In addition to being patently unconstitutional, it is absolutely guaranteed to be a politically corrupt weapon. Think FISA warrants and 3 effin years of "Russian collusion".

The Constitution guarantees us the right of free passage between the states.
This "list", no matter who compiles it, no matter how it is compiled, is a despotic violation of that as well as a clear violation of our right to a trial with a jury of our peers. A trial that comes **after** we have been properly charged for violating a legally passed law by our elected representatives. Not an edict penned by unelected bureaucrats.