US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 128

U.S. SENATE’S FIRST BILL, IN MIDST OF SHUTDOWN, IS A BIPARTISAN DEFENSE OF THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT FROM BOYCOTTS

In the new 2017 Senate, the GOP-controlled S.1 was a bill, called the “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” that, among other provisions, cut various forms of corporate taxes.

But in the 2019 GOP-controlled Senate, the first bill to be considered – S.1 – is not designed to protect American workers, bolster U.S. companies, or address the various debates over border security and immigration. It’s not a bill to open the government. Instead, according to multiple sources involved in the legislative process, S.1 will be a compendium containing a handful of foreign-policy related measures, a main one of which is a provision, with Florida’s GOP Sen. Marco Rubio as a lead sponsor, to defend the Israeli government. The bill is a top legislative priority for AIPAC.

In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel.

In the previous Congress, that measure was known as S.170, and it gives state and local governments explicit legal authority to boycott any U.S. companies which themselves are participating in a boycott against Israel. As the Intercept reported last month, 26 states now have enacted some version of a law to punish or otherwise sanction entities which participate in or support the boycott of Israel, while similar laws are pending in at least 13 additional states. Rubio’s bill is designed to strengthen the legal basis to defend those Israel-protecting laws from constitutional challenge.

Punishment aimed at companies which choose to boycott Israel can also sweep up individual American citizens in its punitive net, because individual contractors often work for state or local governments under the auspices of a sole proprietorship or some other business entity. That was the case with Texas elementary school speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her job working with autistic and speech-impaired children in Austin because she refused to promise not to boycott goods produced in Israel and/or illegal Israeli settlements.

Thus far, the two federal courts that have ruled on such bills have declared them to be unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment speech rights of American citizens. “A restriction of one’s ability to participate in collective calls to oppose Israel unquestionably burdens the protected expression of companies wishing to engage in such a boycott,”

With the seven Democratic co-sponsors, the bill would have the 60 votes it needs to overcome a filibuster. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. – who supported Sen. Cardin’s far more draconian bill of last year and is one of the Senate’s most reliable AIPAC loyalists – also plans to support the Rubio bill, rather than whip votes against it, sources working on the bill said. Schumer’s spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

If the bill does pass the Senate, the major question will be whether the Democratic House – now led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a long-time Israel advocate but also as a supporter of the First Amendment – takes it up and passes it into law.

On January 07 2019 06:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
Whenever anyone needs an example of Republicans not giving a damn about the constitution or freedom of speech this one will probably work.



But don't think it doesn't also implicate Democrats too



theintercept.com

On January 07 2019 08:31 Danglars wrote:

Godawful amendment. The federal government has no authority to compel states and localities to boycott on chosen grounds. Their only related responsibility is regulating interstate commerce. Stupid Republicans.

On January 07 2019 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:


But a worthy trade I presume? Because a deliberate and coordinated attack on the first amendment like that is disqualifying of any and all support for me, let alone that they made it priority 1.

On January 07 2019 09:56 Danglars wrote:

If that’s my representative, he’s lost my vote. The federal government has no say in this, short of extreme cases like wars and violations of regulations on trade. I’m a big supporter of Israel, but this is not the way to go about fighting the BDS losers, as despicable as they are. Not even close to being acceptable.

On January 07 2019 10:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


So you would agree that Republicans in the Senate and house (as well as the cosponsoring/supporting Dems) should be removed from office to protect the first amendment no? If Trump signed it he should go too?

You also mentioned the feds, are you suggesting that states should have this ability to limit free speech?

On January 07 2019 10:19 Danglars wrote:

They should lose their re-election campaigns on supporting reckless legislation. If they're just getting replaced by another first amendment dimwit, like say Hillary, then the process of decision goes on.

Most of the state legislation I've seen also runs afoul constitutionally, but I'd have to look deeper in the matter. Generally they can't. At some edge cases, you can't choose not to do business with Jews if you say it's "because they support the state of Israel" instead of "because they're Jewish?" But again, I'd have to see and read concrete examples of state laws to get into specifics.

On January 07 2019 10:28 GreenHorizons wrote:


I don't usually like to congratulate people for basic decency, but because I'm going to continue to be somewhat skeptical, I want you to know that I sincerely appreciate you stepping up and both taking a position and subjecting it to reasonable scrutiny. I'm confident this isn't an entirely new position constructed upon discovering this coordinated assault against the first amendment in favor of Israel. It's clear though that it hasn't topped your priority list, but you're willing to hold people to account to a degree.

I'd like to investigate the unless "their being replaced" with someone I think you're saying is comparably bad on the issue (or perhaps other issues) which is where accountability seems to break down in both parties. It's for that reason I think it's worth taking a closer look at.

What do you mean when you say "the process of decision goes on"?

On January 07 2019 10:38 Danglars wrote:

If both available candidates are historically bad on the first amendment, you move down the list of least worst candidate on the other stated and unstated policy positions. Similarly to other situations on single issue voters, if they're both pro-life or pro-choice, you look further and try to campaign harder and talk more in the primary process for next time. It looks like you're going towards what situations I'd find myself voting for a third party on?

On January 07 2019 10:49 GreenHorizons wrote:


I suppose less about voting third party and more when it gets to a point you've compromised too much or if there is one?

Because while nominally we may have both determined Trump (and others) signing such an attack on the first amendment would be disqualifying, if you end up voting for them anyway, it's in practice indistinguishable from collaborating in the attack yourself.

So would it not be fair to say that in effect while you oppose the policy, you do have to consider it acceptable as part of a larger consideration of which one of the major parties will get your vote?

On January 07 2019 11:09 Danglars wrote:

No, you're going way off the rails here. Just because voting for someone because his opponent is just as bad, but worse in other areas is indistinguishable from someone else not caring about the issue, does not mean I have to consider it acceptable. The only relevance of that question is directed at whether or not the issue is important enough and both major party's candidates are bad enough on it to justify throwing away my vote on a third party. Even then, that question involves the problem with distinguishing between others who went third party on issues likeability, elitism, corruption, moral character vs my first amendment concerns. Are they any more separable than playing best-of-the-bad with major party candidates?

On January 07 2019 11:16 GreenHorizons wrote:


I'm not sure what rails you're referencing but perhaps the word acceptable is part of the problem. Maybe you would find "bearable" less objectionable?

I do agree with you there are parallels between this decision for you and how others came to the conclusion that supporting elitism, corruption, etc... was in fact not bearable for them and chose not to support either major party that did find it bearable.

What you do with your vote beyond not supporting either of the major parties is a reasonable question to ask, but I don't think changes whether you ultimately find something like this assault on the 1st Amendment bearable or not.


EDIT: Additionally if the people responsible for attacking the 1st Amendment get your vote, in what way can you ever hold them accountable so long as the alternative maintains being worse on that and/or other issues?

On January 07 2019 11:46 Danglars wrote:

So, how to hold either party accountable when many times both have terrible track records on issues that matter, and where the least objectionable alternative means throwing my vote away on a third party candidate. That’s a big issue.

I don’t know if my calculus today will yield the same result in 5 years. Do you change the parties from within or without? Tough to say. Right now, I’m within the Republican Party, hoping with likeminded individuals to pressure candidates to adopt and effect first amendment policies. Maybe a couple years later, I give up and go independent and write a letter every year to the local caucus explaining how unacceptable zero improvement on free speech compared to the Dem challenger does not earn my vote for any primary candidate. It’s not an easy task for me because it refers to strategy and coexists among other rights that are also important to me.

Losing my second amendment rights through legislation or courts is small comfort if I’ve only made headway on the first amendment at that point (let’s say they’re now voicing support in primary, but reversing course upon election). Maybe my better strategy was preserving my second amendment rights through candidates that do present a good difference and speaking, writing, and organizing within the party for the first amendment during that time. That’s the fucked up calculus of broad coalitions. I know some equally passionate and somewhat hairbrained individuals as far right as you are left GH, and they’ve got some pretty good arguments that my plans only slow the loss of first amendment protections while guaranteeing destruction of the second amendment, abortion on demand, open borders, and the rest.