What’s crazy is that the contract allows her to boycott America!
I am surprised this hasn’t become a Supreme Court issue given the number of states that have this clause.
A teacher loses her job if she refuses to swear allegiance to Israel.. in the U.S.!!
- Thread starter El OchoCinco
- Start date
What’s crazy is that the contract allows her to boycott America!
I am surprised this hasn’t become a Supreme Court issue given the number of states that have this clause.
What I'm saying is that the government should not be telling as where to eat or shop as Da Mayor Rahm did in Chicago, as the article pointed out.
The government should not be creating purity tests for employment as is happening with this idiotic legislation addressed in the article. The job of the government is to defend the nation from intruders, make sure the infrastructure is solid, and that's about it. Not surprising they are failing miserably on those two primary functions because they're too god damn busy trying t tell everyone how to think, speak and act.
What I keep telling you guys and you just won't listen, is that there isn't a god damn bit of difference between the establishment dems and the repubs when in comes to intrusion into our personal lives. I didn't and don't like the preaching from the evangelical right, and in some fucking cosmic twist the fucking left has turned into a bunch of 17th century puritans, and every college kid seems to be just fine with it. What happened to freedom? The government, that's what.
Is the Chicago Mayor stifling speech by passing laws or expressing an opinion as someone does about NFL kneelers?
Lets just say that all politicians need to get out of the social justice purity testing business and I'll leave it there.
Notice the map captain posted includes both Dem and GOP led states/legislatures. I cannot believe this has not been challenged because if people are ok with it, then swap out Israel for Russia, Saudi Arabia, France..whatever country that makes you see the light haha
There have long been federal laws that prohibit cooperation with boycotts of Israel.
Antiboycott Laws:
During the mid-1970's the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes. These "antiboycott" laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA). While these laws share a common purpose, there are distinctions in their administration.
Objectives:
The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy.
Primary Impact:
The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States.
Who Is Covered by the Laws?
The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to the activities of U.S. persons in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States. The term "U.S. person" includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States, including the permanent domestic affiliates of foreign concerns. U.S. persons also include U.S. citizens abroad (except when they reside abroad and are employed by non-U.S. persons) and the controlled in fact affiliates of domestic concerns. The test for "controlled in fact" is the ability to establish the general policies or to control the day to day operations of the foreign affiliate.
The scope of the EAR, as defined by Section 8 of the EAA, is limited to actions taken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.
What do the Laws Prohibit?
Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:
The TRA does not "prohibit" conduct, but denies tax benefits ("penalizes") for certain types of boycott-related agreements.
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
Antiboycott Laws:
During the mid-1970's the United States adopted two laws that seek to counteract the participation of U.S. citizens in other nation's economic boycotts or embargoes. These "antiboycott" laws are the 1977 amendments to the Export Administration Act (EAA) and the Ribicoff Amendment to the 1976 Tax Reform Act (TRA). While these laws share a common purpose, there are distinctions in their administration.
Objectives:
The antiboycott laws were adopted to encourage, and in specified cases, require U.S. firms to refuse to participate in foreign boycotts that the United States does not sanction. They have the effect of preventing U.S. firms from being used to implement foreign policies of other nations which run counter to U.S. policy.
Primary Impact:
The Arab League boycott of Israel is the principal foreign economic boycott that U.S. companies must be concerned with today. The antiboycott laws, however, apply to all boycotts imposed by foreign countries that are unsanctioned by the United States.
Who Is Covered by the Laws?
The antiboycott provisions of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) apply to the activities of U.S. persons in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States. The term "U.S. person" includes all individuals, corporations and unincorporated associations resident in the United States, including the permanent domestic affiliates of foreign concerns. U.S. persons also include U.S. citizens abroad (except when they reside abroad and are employed by non-U.S. persons) and the controlled in fact affiliates of domestic concerns. The test for "controlled in fact" is the ability to establish the general policies or to control the day to day operations of the foreign affiliate.
The scope of the EAR, as defined by Section 8 of the EAA, is limited to actions taken with intent to comply with, further, or support an unsanctioned foreign boycott.
What do the Laws Prohibit?
Conduct that may be penalized under the TRA and/or prohibited under the EAR includes:
- Agreements to refuse or actual refusal to do business with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
- Agreements to discriminate or actual discrimination against other persons based on race, religion, sex, national origin or nationality.
- Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about business relationships with or in Israel or with blacklisted companies.
- Agreements to furnish or actual furnishing of information about the race, religion, sex, or national origin of another person.
The TRA does not "prohibit" conduct, but denies tax benefits ("penalizes") for certain types of boycott-related agreements.
https://www.bis.doc.gov/index.php/enforcement/oac
On the surface this seems like a blatant violation of the 1st amendment. It becomes more complicated whenever you look deeper.
I read through the Texas state bill that was passed. It isn't geared towards individuals, it's geared towards businesses entities. The state of Texas is Israel's number one trade partner in the US. They're protecting their own interest by choosing not to do business with business entities that are anti-Israel.
This comes down to whether or not a business entity has the same constitutional rights as an individual. I'm not sure if they do or not. Don't get me wrong, this entire thing is incredibly stupid. But I'm not sure it's as clean cut as it seems from a legal standpoint.
I read through the Texas state bill that was passed. It isn't geared towards individuals, it's geared towards businesses entities. The state of Texas is Israel's number one trade partner in the US. They're protecting their own interest by choosing not to do business with business entities that are anti-Israel.
This comes down to whether or not a business entity has the same constitutional rights as an individual. I'm not sure if they do or not. Don't get me wrong, this entire thing is incredibly stupid. But I'm not sure it's as clean cut as it seems from a legal standpoint.
It think it is pretty clear cut in her case, you cannot compel a person to pledge a loyalty oath to a foreign power as a condition of your state employment.
With respect to businesses, entities are considered a person under the law. The Fedral government cannot punish an individual for criticizing the government, it also applies to an entity as well.
I am sure the Texas law would fail a constitutional challenge because it says the State of Texas will not do business with you if you express your free speech rights in a way Texas does not agree with on a political issue with respect to a foreign power. Seems a bit of a stretch to protect its "business interests".
Sanity prevailing:
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...cotting-israel
In a victory for freedom of speech advocates and a setback for conservative state leaders, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman on Thursday issued a temporary injunction on a politically charged law that bars state contract workers from boycotting Israel.
By blocking the state from enforcing the 2-year-old law, Pitman sided with Palestinian speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her contract position with the Pflugerville School district in October when she refused to sign her initials on an agreement saying she does not boycott Israel and would not do so for the remainder of her contract.
Amawi, a 46-year-old mother from Round Rock, testified in Pitman’s Austin courtroom last month that she refuses to buy certain items, such as hummus and classroom toys, that are made by Israeli companies. Staring out at dozens of members of the local Muslim community, she told the court that Israel has long mistreated her family and other Palestinians and she could not in good conscience certify that she would refuse to boycott the country.
https://www.statesman.com/news/20190...cotting-israel
In a victory for freedom of speech advocates and a setback for conservative state leaders, U.S. District Judge Robert Pitman on Thursday issued a temporary injunction on a politically charged law that bars state contract workers from boycotting Israel.
By blocking the state from enforcing the 2-year-old law, Pitman sided with Palestinian speech pathologist Bahia Amawi, who lost her contract position with the Pflugerville School district in October when she refused to sign her initials on an agreement saying she does not boycott Israel and would not do so for the remainder of her contract.
Amawi, a 46-year-old mother from Round Rock, testified in Pitman’s Austin courtroom last month that she refuses to buy certain items, such as hummus and classroom toys, that are made by Israeli companies. Staring out at dozens of members of the local Muslim community, she told the court that Israel has long mistreated her family and other Palestinians and she could not in good conscience certify that she would refuse to boycott the country.