Don't you think it hypocrisy for politicians to blather incessantly over their love and honor toward the Constitution while passing legislation contravening it?
If you think otherwise, you are wrong. With that thought as a start - Cole wrote:
In Victory for American Freedom, Judge Mark Cohen Calls “Unconstitutional” Georgia’s Ban on Boycotting Israel for Brutalizing Palestinians
Ann Arbor (Informed Comment) – Ross Williams at the Georgia Reporter writes that federal judge Mark Cohen on Monday characterized as unconstitutional a Georgia state law that prohibited contractors for the Georgia state government from boycotting Israel. Cohen is United States District Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. This initial ruling simply turned back defendents’ attempt to have the lawsuit dismissed, but Cohen obviously intends to strike down the law at issue.
[... Cole stated how plaintiff Martin gained standing to challenge the law as impacting her rights, Cole continuing ...]
Then governor Nathan Deal had signed SB 327 into law in 2016. It obligated any person or company that contracted with the state of Georgia for services of $1000 or more to vow not to boycott the Israeli government as a result of its treatment of Palestinians.
Judge Cohen’s ruling concluded,
“The requirement contained in O.C.G.A. § 50-5-85 that parties seeking to contract with the state of Georgia sign a certification that they are not engaged in a boycott of Israel also is unconstitutional compelled speech. “[W]hen a State attempts to make inquiries about a person’s beliefs or associations, its power is limited by the First Amendment. Broad and sweeping state inquiries into these protected areas . . . discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution.” Baird v. State Bar of Ariz. 401 U.S. 1, 6 (1971). “Similarly, the State may not condition employment ‘on an oath denying past, or abjuring future/protected speech and associational activities.” Amawi, 373 F. Supp. 3d at 754(quoting Cole, 405 U.S. at 680).Because O.C.G.A. § 50-5-85 discriminates based on the motive for engaging in a boycott against Israel, the certification requirement forces parties contracting21Case 1:20-cv-00596-MHC Document 53 Filed 05/21/21 Page 21 of 29 with the state of Georgia to publicly assign a motive and speech element to what Defendants deem merely economic conduct. The certification that one is not engaged in a boycott of Israel is no different that requiring a person to espouse certain political beliefs or to engage in certain political associations. The Supreme Court has found similar requirements to be unconstitutional on their face.”
It is fascinating the degree to which Cohen’s ruling depended for its reasoning on the previous federal district court decisions striking down anti-boycott laws relating to Israel in Kansas, Texas and Arizona.
These rulings underlined the importance of Claiborne (1982), and Cohen concurred.
I pointed out that without political boycotts the Civil Rights movement might well not have succeeded. Charles Evers and the NAACP boycotted Claiborne Hardware store in Mississippi, and the Supreme Court upheld their right to do so, writing, “While States have broad power to regulate economic activities, there is no comparable right to prohibit peaceful political activity such as that found in the boycott in this case.”
As to politics at play and the chilling reach infringement on speech entails, Cole continued:
Martin gained the backing of the Georgia chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations {CAIR) and the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund in launching a lawsuit against the state, alleging that requiring her to sign that pledge violated her first amendment rights.
What is not widely understood is that professors, journalists and others who speak at state universities are considered contractors with the state, so that this law directly interfered with freedom of speech and academic freedom. Most such speakers cannot afford to fly around giving public talks on their own dime, so if the university cannot pick up the tab, those ideas don’t get shared. And, further note that the speaker would not be necessarily speaking on Israel-Palestine. Some people who have been economically harmed by these bills who don’t in fact boycott Israel, but simply won’t sign a loyalty pledge of any sort since it injures their constitutional rights.
[...] The Georgia law is one of 38 passed by state legislatures around the United States. Whenever they have been challenged in court they have been struck down. The laws have been pushed by the US Israel lobbies, likely in conjunction with the Israeli government itself, in a frontal assault on the US constitution and American freedoms of expression and the press. The groups include Agudath Israel of America, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, American Jewish Committee, Israel Action Network, Israel Allies Foundation, Israel Project, Israeli-American Coalition for Action, (IAC for Action) an offshoot to the Israeli-American Council (IAC, Jewish Federations of North America, StandWithUs, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Zionist Organization of America. Jewish Americans in earlier decades had been absolutely crucial to the expansion of American liberties under the First Amendment, and Judge Cohen stands in that proud tradition. It is sad to see this hard line pro-Likud section of them now attempt to impose a Communist-style censorship on other Americans.
This country began with the Boston Tea Party, which was a boycott of the British East India Company.
The Boston Tea Party was more than a boycott. Tea chests were dumped into the harbor. Nonetheless, mere advocacy of boycotting, disinvesting, and sanctioning Israel for its sins - or doing so oneself as well as encouraging others - is Constitutionally protected conduct and while political bullying by pro-Zionist operations can be ham-handed (sorry, wrong figure of speech) but might does not make right under our Constitution, even when might is allowed to run amok in Gaza. That is wrong and that is there, not here, where we are decent, civilized people under rule of law, not theocratically governed, (despite the will of some Republicans who espouse Christian nationalism as a way for US to go).
So, bottom line seems to be the federal judiciary is kicking the props out from under anti-BDS legislation being done to us by presumably well-meaning but butt stupid biased individuals with legislative power exceeding their capacity to use such power in freedom-loving Constitutional ways. Without naming names. They do not like freedom of reproductive choice either. With a stacked Court they may push that agenda upon US, but that is tomorrow's worry, haunting us today.
_______UPDATE_______
As a hypothetical, it seems the right to advocate boycott would reach to Crabgrass suggesting readers boycott West Virginia goods and services because of Joe Manchin.
Hey, folks . . .
______FURTHER UPDATE______
Cole linked here, where it is clear the memorandum opinion of Judge Cohen was on a defense motion to dismiss, so more litigation will happen before a statute is actually stricken as unconstitutional, but that eventual outcome seems likely.
Cole also linked here, (which linked in turn to here) which discussed an 8th Circuit panel overturning a dismissal of a challenge to an Arkansas anti-BSD statute; the District Court opinion being online here.
Compare this essay equating BDS with "antisemitism," whereas it is anti-Israel because of Israeli conduct against Palestinians. It is pro-Palestinian, and not generically against Israel because that nation's population is primarily Jewish or that it's politicians sometimes term Israel "a Jewish State." In effect, BDS is against conduct, not status. "Antisemitism" is not so elastic that criticism of the abuses the nation of Israel inflicts upon Arab people in land conquered by war and occupied by the conquering force imposing its will. Same author, here. Unfortunately, the 8th Circuit opinion was not found online (Likely it is somewhere online but Crabgrass after a modest search effort could not find it.)
Author Goldfeder, notes early in his essay that it is a critique of a Harvard Law Review item, online here. Crabgrass views the argument weak that BDS against what Human Rights Watch called an apartheid state is wrongful because the apartheists happen to be Jewish. That's stupid. What they are doing, disproportionate killing of civilians in the course of a military occupation, pushing colonialism-settlements within the occupied land, etc., is what is challenged as wrong, not their religion. Gross, crass, evil behavior is what it is, independent of the religion of oppressor and of victim. The particular BDS approach of boycotting goods produced within settlements thrust into Palestinian land most starkly defines the issue as a pressure exerted against a behavior, aimed to change it.
______FURTHER UPDATE______
Cole linked to this video where the narrator reads Abby Martin's statement upon winning the case that the Georgia statute is unconstitutional (as applied and interpreted by defendants to Martin's damage, under the facts of her case).
Links above show the question hangs fire. But that in courts anti-BDS law will be tightly scrutinized, and facts of disproportionate infliction of hurt are a context in which those statutes will be scrutinized - where Human Rights Watch has forcefully spoken out against the Apartheid being dealt out against helpless people by a nation having a powerful military using it to inflict inequality on people in war-taken decades long military occupation and suppression.
Same video commentator - another short video worth deliberation. Showing how Bernie Sanders' view of Palestinian suffering has evolved, the commentator in that video suggests it is time for the nation as a whole to change policy, and that history is moving in that direction.
Cole links to Wikipedia's post on Anti-BDS effort, mentioning that U.S. groups pushing against BDS are numerous, with a plethora of same-sounding names:
The [anti-BDS] laws have been pushed by the US Israel lobbies, likely in conjunction with the Israeli government itself, in a frontal assault on the US constitution and American freedoms of expression and the press. The groups include Agudath Israel of America, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, American Jewish Committee, Israel Action Network, Israel Allies Foundation, Israel Project, Israeli-American Coalition for Action, (IAC for Action) an offshoot to the Israeli-American Council (IAC, Jewish Federations of North America, StandWithUs, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Zionist Organization of America.
[italics added] Wikipedia has a post on U.S. foreign agent registration law, where those groups listed above should register, as a moral matter even if some pettifoggery legal loophole exists so that they cannot be prosecuted for not registering as agents of Netanyahu's "Jewish State," Isreal.
Perhaps all or some in that listing have registered. That question was not researched for this post, apart from this paragraph suggesting it is a ripe question in search of an answer. Which question requires one observation - Ms. Clinton got her drawers in a bind over "Russian Interference" on behalf of Trump in the course of her losing the 2016 election; whereas nobody seems as intense about all the clear and ongoing Israeli interference in our elections, 1948 and onward. It is far more egregious than any Russian effort, and far, far too effective to be allowed to go unchecked.