Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I pledge allegiance to the flag and to the continuing oppression of Palestinians?
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 68 (815870)
07-25-2017 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by dronestar
07-25-2017 5:00 PM


This law would take away American’s free speech and First Amendment rights by introducing draconian penalties of million dollar fines and twenty years in jail.
Quite frankly, the law this Bill tries to enact are unconstitutional on their face. I'm not allowed to tell folks that I'm not buying product X, Y, and Z, and why? Really?
It will be interesting to see if any Democrats line up behind this bill.
I don’t care how many mentally-impaired orangutans run against the Democrats in future elections, I will never support or vote for Democrats and their anti-American subversion.
Yeah, dronestar. As if...
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by dronestar, posted 07-25-2017 5:00 PM dronestar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2017 6:27 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 68 (816000)
07-27-2017 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Riggamortis
07-27-2017 6:23 AM


Re: Arab league is irrelevant.
So the term 'politically motivated' is used redundantly rather than representing some observation of nefarious intent. The very act of a boycott is intended to induce change in the recipient, boycotting a nation is necessarily 'politically motivated'.
Thanks, stiff bodied one. I don't see how your point can be missed. Boycotts are a legitimate expression of speech for the express purpose of applying political pressure. I understand that people who don't appreciate or agree with the cause of the boycotters or who hate the boycotter don't like the idea, but government sanctions targeting boycotts directly target free speech.
Now I under that the UN, the Arab League, and the European Union are not entitled to first amendment protection. But the huge fines and sentences applied by this law, at least by my first reading, target American citizens who might agree with a boycott that may have been first suggested by, say the European Union.
And although I have not found the applicable text in the proposed bill, the comments provided by the sponsors suggest that the Bill applies not just to Israel, but other US allies.
hey aren't attacking Israels legitimacy, they're attacking its human rights violations beyond its legitimate borders.
I can understand when fundies don't get this. They are afraid that any criticism of Israel will bring about the end times. But I had thought that other folks were able to distinguish between anti-Semitism, and criticism of Isreal. Apparently, such distinctions are more subtle than I thought.
Now here's my hyperbolic take on it.
Yikes. I guess we cannot agree on everything.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Riggamortis, posted 07-27-2017 6:23 AM Riggamortis has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Riggamortis, posted 07-27-2017 10:54 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 31 of 68 (816038)
07-28-2017 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by caffeine
07-26-2017 4:01 PM


What do "activities in the interstate or foreign commerce of the United States" actually refer to?
That is legalese. Congress' power to regulate commerce comes from the Commerce Clause of the US Constitution. That "activities" sentence expresses that the regulation is limited to, but covers the full extent of whatever the courts interpret the Commerce Clause to cover.
The statement you question has nothing to do with the activities of government employees. A foreign company located in the US and directing an international boycott would be subject to the law.
I don't see what right the government has to prevent a private business or individual from refusing to do business with foreign companies. Even less just would be to make it an fineable offense to request a boycott; as the new bill seems to propose. Prohibiting someone from proposing a policy is indefensible.
Of course, it is unjust. It's also unconstitutional.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by caffeine, posted 07-26-2017 4:01 PM caffeine has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 07-28-2017 9:09 AM NoNukes has replied
 Message 53 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 11:58 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 68 (816041)
07-28-2017 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by jar
07-28-2017 9:09 AM


Re: We may learn that we have totally misunderstood the Constitution.
The first is true but the latter has not been established yet.
Well, no it could not have been established given that the bill is still a twinkle in the eye of a few Senators. It has not been enacted.
Nonetheless, the bill does run afoul of some very clear precedent, and I am quite comfortable with the opinion I have expressed that the law is unconstitutional on its face. Surely you are not saying that I need to label my own posts as my opinion?
As for the DOJ, I am not overly concerned about their opinion. It is that of the Supreme Court, that rightly or wrongly settles the issue.
"I think the Constitutional Guarantee that "The Rights of a business shall not be infringed" may well take precedence."
Which way do you think this will cut? If an American business were to decide not to buy diamonds from Israel, or if a bunch of musicians decided to leave Israel off of their next tour, how do you think would the Supreme Court rule if the DOJ imposed a huge fine?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by jar, posted 07-28-2017 9:09 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by jar, posted 07-28-2017 11:42 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 39 of 68 (816064)
07-28-2017 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Taq
07-28-2017 12:58 PM


Re: Some Evidence of Smear Propaganda Against Israel. Phony photos for instance
Israeli's demolish Palestinians homes and build Jewish settlements
Not just against international law. Israel's own courts, as recently as last November have ruled that such activity occurs and is illegal. The fact that Israel violates the law in this area should not even be considered controversial. Just unpopular.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Taq, posted 07-28-2017 12:58 PM Taq has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 68 (816144)
07-30-2017 4:36 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Riggamortis
07-29-2017 11:58 PM


Re: Legalese question.
Theoretically restoring the rights of individuals to participate in boycotts unofficially but preventing companies in the US participating officially.
Companies are not robots, they are run and operated by people. It would be a person who made any decision to participate or not participate in a boycott. If you see some language in the bill which restricts the bill from applying to individuals, I'd appreciate a pointer. Absent that, my reading agrees with that of the ACLU and I have yet to hear of any of the sponsors credibly defending the bill by saying the ACLU is wrong.
Overturn citizens united and we'll talk about restricting companies ability to influence politics via boycotts lol.
I'm not sure that I'd interested in such restrictions. Historically, such boycotts have primarily advanced interests I favor. In fact, I as a private citizen can pressure companies and my local government, to divest/boycott. Instead, it is their private lobbying of the government that causes the most harm to common folks.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Riggamortis, posted 07-29-2017 11:58 PM Riggamortis has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 68 of 68 (816228)
08-01-2017 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by ramoss
07-31-2017 6:27 PM


It acutlaly is just renewing a bill that has been in effect for 40 years, and what it does is prohibit COMPANIES (not people) from joining any boycott instituted by the U.N. against Israel
First of all, I can read the bill and see exactly what portions of the bill are changes to the law because the bill is written in the form of edits to current law. I can see that the UNCHR and references to "any international boycott" have been added and were not there in the old law. I can see words like "whosoever" and understand that such words don't apply to companies.
I can also see the references to criminal provisions that include time in prison.
I don't believe your interpretation is correct, but I am willing to be shown differently. A statement or two from Schumer or another of the drafters would be of great help here.
Secondly, companies are inanimate objects and we cannot imprison a building or a fork lift. Human beings are the ones subject to that kind of penalty. It is a human being who will make the decision to purchase or not to purchase from Israel.
Here is a quote from the ACLU's analysis.
quote:
But even apart from limiting the right to boycott by refusing to purchase goods for political reasons, the bill infringes on pure speech. It prohibits even requests for information about whether a person is doing business in Israel in order to support a boycott of Israel, regardless of whether the requester is actually engaged in a boycott. This additional prohibition will chill people from seeking information about companies boycotting Israel or engaged in business dealings in Israel.
In short, I don't find your words the least bit comforting; the bill does substantially more than just renew existing provisions or simply add the UN to the mix. If the intentions of the new law are as you claim, then the bill ought to be clear about that, instead of requiring that somebody initiate a law suit to sort things out. Instead, the bill is an attempt at evil suppression of citizens rights even without accepting that the UN provisions which provoked this "renewing" were right on target.
Edited by NoNukes, : remove some mellowing words.
Edited by NoNukes, : some grammar fixing. No changes to content.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey
I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. Thomas Jefferson
Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith
I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by ramoss, posted 07-31-2017 6:27 PM ramoss has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024