tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post7170523461208451211..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: A Non-Hyperbolic, Non-Apologetic Analysis of the Proposed Israel Boycott LawDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-34638814773595471702017-07-23T13:54:33.672-07:002017-07-23T13:54:33.672-07:00All laws have, in one form or another, language to...All laws have, in one form or another, language to this effect. But what it means in context is that some mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Commerce will issue regulations enforcing the law, blah blah blah.<br /><br />Of course, the problem of a President (or other executive branch officials) showing contempt for rule of law is that it really doesn't matter what the law says (because the whole point is we think they're not constrained by <i>law</i>). But in practice this has been a very obscure law that I doubt is on either President Trump or the Federalist Society's radar screen (the FedSoc, incidentally, does not to my knowledge issue statements of the sort that you have in mind. It's a conservative intellectual organization, the right-wing equivalent to the American Constitution Society of which I've been a member).David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-54978946069962348802017-07-23T06:58:21.547-07:002017-07-23T06:58:21.547-07:00This is a pretty clear analysis that answers most ...This is a pretty clear analysis that answers most questions about the new law. But I note that the legislation starts with the proposition that "President shall issue regulations". The current President has demonstrated contempt for the First Amendment. Has the administration, if you can call it that, said anything that could be interpreted as agreeing with your analysis? How about the Federalist Society, which seems to control the Supreme Court nomination process, if not the whole Justice Department? If you have to be a Sudoku expert to figure out if speech is prohibited, this legislation certainly could restrict fee speech.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01888251693532990364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-62772949966342658222017-07-21T07:32:05.647-07:002017-07-21T07:32:05.647-07:00I also question The Intercept's interpretation...I also question The Intercept's interpretation of the potential criminal penalty as including up to 20 years imprisonment.<br /><br />Section 4(c) of S.720 says, "Whoever knowingly violates or conspires to or attempts to violate any provision of section 8(a) [of the Export Administration Act] . . . shall be <i>fined</i> in accordance with [50 U.S.C. § 1705]." (Emphasis added.)<br /><br />Section 1705(c) provides for imprisonment if the offender is a natural person, but the bill is limited to "shall be fined." Additionally, as I understand (this is all a bit confusing), the penalty provisions of 50 U.S.C. § 4610(a)–(b) have sunset, which is why S.720 proposes the addition of subsection (j), which directed to the code section of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02877638235993353235noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-74506921123647708692017-07-20T15:47:22.757-07:002017-07-20T15:47:22.757-07:00The bill doesn't ban boycotts. The bill doesn&...The bill doesn't ban boycotts. The bill doesn't ban boycotts. The bill doesn't ban boycotts. This entire post is about explaining why the bill doesn't ban boycotts!David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1521576724898420652017-07-20T15:43:45.743-07:002017-07-20T15:43:45.743-07:00The West Bank issue seems the most problematic. Do...The West Bank issue seems the most problematic. Does the bill specify (as I believe the House one does) that boycotts of the occupied territories are also banned? If so, this is significantly different than boycotting an entire country. Banning boycotts of products based on the actual conditions under which they're made (as opposed to the entire country) is tantamount to banning all legitimate boycotts. It also blurs the line between Israel proper and the occupied territories, in contrast to 50 years of American precedent.MChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13140706564608545242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-67946684472567247342017-07-20T14:20:19.244-07:002017-07-20T14:20:19.244-07:00I don't think a labeling requirement counts as...I don't think a labeling requirement counts as a "boycott" under the plain language of the statute. It is not a refusal to conduct business with the company in question; companies are required to label things in ways they would dislike all the time.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-51044220368690077462017-07-20T14:15:58.976-07:002017-07-20T14:15:58.976-07:00Thank you for this careful analysis, David.
One qu...Thank you for this careful analysis, David.<br />One question, perhaps a bit out of left field.<br />The most likely relevant action by the EU or other foreign jurisdictions at the moment concerns proper labelling of products from territories occupied or administered by Israel, most notably the West Bank but possibly Golan as well, and produced by Israeli settlers. A classic example would be labelling of wine produced from grapes grown by settlers in the West Bank or Golan. Currently this is most likely labelled product of Israel, and the government of Israel, as well as producers, are disinclined to relabel as product of the West Bank. Mislabelled products may be prohibited from the market. What is your assessment of whether this can be considered a boycott (or other prohibited conduct) triggering the terms of the American statute? My guess is that this is the primary threat motivating the proposed statutory change, but I am myself not clear whether the proposed language would cover it.<br />--Alan Jay WeisbardAlan Jay Weisbardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07992336604207867511noreply@blogger.com