 |
| You can click to enlarge and read. But snip it there. |
Go to the ORIGINAL for the full story, especially to learn how the script ends. It's good. Try it. You'll like it. (Some may feel a pinch, but discussion - open and objective, a/k/a bias free - is a pubic good.)
The belief here is that our Attorney General should seek a declaratory judgment on whether the law Timmer describes is enforceable or unconstitutional. Courts do not give advisory opinions, but Federal courts will take questions certified from state courts; and state courts exist to resolve questions of constitutionality under a state's constitution; with federal disrict judges sometimes certifying a novel question of state law to a state Supreme Court. Perhaps we need some bold malcontent re the existing legislation to encounter a harshness which creates an actual case and controversy - one which cannot be swept under the carpet unresolved.
There is a mechanism known as AGOs, Attorney General Opinions, where the AG of Minnesota can post opinions of law. This kind of objectionable legislation deserves one.
Either way, unsound legislation impinging upon either state or federal constitutions (or both) needs to be quelled; else the judiciary fails its purpose.
UPDATE: There are two statutes, each is laughable. Each has the language of the other; RMS 3.226 and RMS 16C.053; each imposing a penalty upon a vendor who may individually choose BDS as a matter of personal conscience, apart from any collective refusal to deal antitrust considerations. RMS 3.226, in full states:
3.226 CONTRACTS WITH VENDORS WHO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ISRAEL PROHIBITED.
Subdivision 1.Discrimination by vendor.
(a) The legislature may not enter into a contract with a vendor that engages in discrimination against Israel, or against persons or entities doing business in Israel, when making decisions related to the operation of the vendor's business.
(b) For purposes of this section, "discrimination" includes but is not limited to engaging in refusals to deal, terminating business activities, or other actions that are intended to limit commercial relations with Israel, or persons or entities doing business in Israel, when such actions are taken in a manner that in any way discriminates on the basis of nationality or national origin and is not based on a valid business reason.
Subd. 2.Exemption; legislature may waive.
(a) This section does not apply to contracts with a value of less than $50,000.
(b) The legislature may waive application of this section on a contract if the legislature determines that compliance is not practicable or in the best interests of the state.
Subd. 3.Relation to existing law.
This section does not prohibit a vendor from engaging in free speech or expression protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the state of Minnesota.
History: 2017 c 21 s 1; 1Sp2017 c 4 art 2 s 50
[bolding in original omitted] The laughable part, the final supposedly saving clause, Subd. 3, ignores that freedom of association is a First Amendment right beyond narrowly defined "speech;" and that economic collective boycotts for politically sound reasons of conscience are judicially recognized as Constitutional; NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 US 886 (1982). Google Scholar catalogs how Claiborne Hardware has been cited with links so that entire cases can show nuances of how courts construed it; but basically a freedom of association is inclusive of even a collective freedom to disassociate (to boycott), and if BDS opponents know of compelling caselaw to the contrary they would not need to be bullying legislators and legislatures to enact dubious law.