Boycotts Against Israel in the US Can Be Punishable By Law

a reply to: Xtrozero

Yeah, policies outweigh the Constitution, got it.

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

Yeah, policies outweigh the Constitution, got it.

I guess you can just say Constitutional, but that doesn't make it Constitutional. How do you see it Constitutional? There are a ton of things the government can do if companies don't want to play nice.

a reply to: VariedcodeSole

It has nothing to do with fear.

Oh but it does . It all boils down to Fear.

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: VariedcodeSole

It has nothing to do with fear.

Oh but it does . It all boils down to Fear.

Projected fear hoping to illicit a similar response.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

Yeah, policies outweigh the Constitution, got it.

I guess you can just say Constitutional, but that doesn't make it Constitutional. How do you see it Constitutional? There are a ton of things the government can do if companies don't want to play nice.

Unconstitutional. Why would I think it's constitutional to limit or penalize the right to unlimited contract? We still have that in this country, right? Probably not. The Constitution and USC being eroded over time. I guess that's what you get when you apathetically dump your republic for a fascist state.

a reply to: VariedcodeSole

So the US government shouldn’t interfere if say a US company wanted to sale military tanks and jets to Iran?

a reply to: VariedcodeSole

Some examples.

Shrugs..

Demystifying U.S. Antiboycott Requirements
An enhanced focus on enforcement brings easily overlooked regulations around boycotts and trade restrictions back into the spotlight
By
Burt Braverman and
Melissa Burgess
06.01.2023

www.dwt.com...

The Six Prohibitions
Prohibition Against Refusals To Do Business: Prohibits refusing or agreeing to refuse to do business in or with a boycotted country or entity or resident of a boycotted country. This prohibition extends to requiring any third party to refuse or agree to refuse to do the same. A violation can occur even without a written agreement or specific request.
Example (prohibited conduct): A U.S.-incorporated establishment of a foreign airline, with the intent to comply with the parent country's boycott, refuses to accept individuals who hold Israeli passports as passengers on flights between the United States and the United Kingdom; the basis for the refusal is the issuing country of the passports. See Case No. 19-04.

Prohibition Against Taking Discriminatory Actions: Prohibits (i) refusing or agreeing to refuse to employ, or otherwise discriminating against, a U.S. person on the basis of race, religion, sex, or national origin; or (ii) discriminating against any corporation or organization that meets the definition of a U.S. person on the basis of the race, religion, sex, or national origin of any one of that entity's owners, officers, directors, or employees.
Example (prohibited conduct): A U.S.-incorporated business agrees to a contract for a government construction project in a Middle Eastern country; the contract includes a clause that "no persons of country X origin" are allowed to work on the project.
Example (permissible conduct): Instead of prohibiting individuals on the basis of national origin, the contract includes a clause that "no persons who are citizens, residents, or nationals of country X" are allowed to work on the project.

The second prohibition against taking discriminatory actions, by its terms, prohibits boycott-based agreements to refuse to employ or otherwise discriminate against a U.S. person based on that person's national origin, and the first example is within the prohibition. However, the second prohibition does not extend to restrictions based on citizenship, nationality, or residency, which is why the second example is not a violation of the second prohibition.[1] See 15 C.F.R. § 760.2(b) (Examples ii and iii).

Then goes on with..

3. Prohibition Against Furnishing Information About Race, Religion, Sex, or National Origin:

4. Prohibition Against Furnishing Information About Business Relationships With Boycotted Countries or Blacklisted Persons:


5. Prohibition Against Furnishing Information About Associations With Charitable and Fraternal Organizations:

6.Prohibition Against Implementing Letters of Credit Containing Prohibited Conditions or Requirements:

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole

originally posted by: asabuvsobelow
a reply to: VariedcodeSole

It has nothing to do with fear.

Oh but it does . It all boils down to Fear.

Projected fear hoping to illicit a similar response.

The response is Fear mate . Across the board all of the Anti-Israel rhetoric is Fear.

I'm not projecting anything I'm simply pointing out the Obvious . A People , A nationality known as Jewish people are being attacked on all sides .....

That is Fear , Only Fear can "Illicit such a response " towards a people . An irrational deep rooted Fear.

I.E . The Japanese during WW2 , Arabs after 9/11 , oh and of course the Jews during WW2 . The Palestinians currently in Palestine and so on and so forth all persecuted out of Fear.

originally posted by: VariedcodeSole
I guess that's what you get when you apathetically dump your republic for a fascist state.

My point is where in the Constitution is this? You are suggesting your Constitutional rights are being destroyed by this.

This came out in about the mid-70s, were you even alive back then...lol