Obama signs Israel anti-boycott provisions into law, settlements and all

Congress recently passed the Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Act of 2015. The massive trade and customs bill contains, inter alia, provisions designed to oppose boycotts and similar economic warfare against Israel. Yesterday, President Obama signed the bill into law.

While signing it, he made a statement, objecting to parts of the law that oppose boycotts of Jewish Israeli enterprises in the West Bank and Golan Heights. (The law’s anti-boycott protections apply to “Israel” and “Israeli-controlled territories.”)

The actual effect of the signing statement, however, is nil. It does not in any way limit the reach or finality of the law. Indeed, the statement does not even purport that parts of the law are unconstitutional or unenforceable. Nor could the president easily have done so: Congress in passing the law used core Article I powers that the president cannot unilaterally restrict — in particular, the powers to regulate foreign commerce and the federal courts.

Thus after Obama’s signature, the provisions of the law that apply to Israeli-controlled territory are as much binding legislation as the rest of the bill.

It is well-settled that the president cannot veto individual provisions of a law — they either sign the whole thing into law, or reject it entirely. However, there is a practice whereby presidents, when signing a bill, issue a “signing statement.” These typically say that the president intends to not enforce parts of the law because he sees it as unconstitutional.

Crucially, the statement makes no claim that the law is unconstitutional. Indeed, it is quite modest and only addresses the administration’s enforcement of one particular set of provisions in the law:

my Administration will interpret and implement the provisions in the Act that purport to direct the Executive to seek to negotiate and enter into particular international agreements (section 414(a)(1)) or to take certain positions in international negotiations with respect to international agreements with foreign countries not qualifying for trade authorities procedures (sections 108(b), 414(a)(2), 415, and 909(c)) in a manner that does not interfere with my constitutional authority to conduct diplomacy.

The relevant provisions require that the president make preventing such boycotts a “principal trade negotiating objective” of the United States in dealings with other countries. Under the Constitution, the president has the authority to “make” treaties, and Congress cannot dictate their terms or micromanage their negotiation. Congress can of course tell the president what to keep in mind, which is exactly what the law does. And the signing statement merely makes clear it will be interpreted in the latter, and not the former, way.

Such a statement was probably redundant, as the relevant provisions inherently give the president vast wiggle room, since resisting boycotts is among many such trade negotiation priorities, and the law does not purport to dictate how much emphasis to place on it or how to trade it off against other objectives. In the normal course of events, the president could easily have ignored this in practice, and his statement adds little to that. Indeed, the hollow signing statement is more a venting of pique — that the Israel provisions were put into a bill too big to veto — than constitutional principle.

Indeed, Obama wisely made no constitutional argument about other key provisions of the law — because they could not be seriously made. The first two sections of the law are merely statements of policy and findings by Congress. These broadly oppose economic boycotts of Israel and territories under its control, and importantly, conclude that such measures violate WTO non-discrimination rules. As declaratory findings by Congress, there is nothing the president can do to undo them.

The next paragraph requires the president to make a biannual report on boycott efforts, and the United States’ response to them. This is a pure reporting requirement. Just because the president might disagree with Congress about the merit of the activities being reported — he likes boycotts, Congress does not — this in no way affects Congress’s ability to require reporting. The reporting itself is entirely neutral.

The law deals with trade with Israel, and restrictions on such trade (boycotts). While the president indeed has a major role in foreign affairs, legislating on issues of “foreign commerce” is a sole power of Congress. All trade laws have significant foreign policy and diplomatic consequences. Where trade and diplomacy conflict, Congress’s specific Foreign Commerce power trumps any vague presidential “diplomacy” power. No one has ever suggested it would be unconstitutional for Congress to liberalize trade with a country that the president seeks to pressure or isolate.

Moreover, one of the main operative provisions of the law is directed not to the executive, but to the judiciary. Here, the president has no constitutional prerogative to assert. The provision bans the enforcement of foreign judgments against Israeli entities that are based on the mistaken notion that doing business in Israeli-controlled territories is illegal. This law on the enforceability of foreign judgments is part of Congress’s exclusive legislative power to regulate the jurisdiction, rules of decision and procedures of the federal courts. This power is in no way shared with the president.

Thus as of now, U.S. law clearly opposes boycotts that are “politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/25/obama-signs-israel-anti-boycott-provisions-into-law-settlements-and-all/


Excellent, another nail in the coffin for the racist BDS movement

Washington Post wrote:It is well-settled that the president cannot veto individual provisions of a law — they either sign the whole thing into law, or reject it entirely. However, there is a practice whereby presidents, when signing a bill, issue a “signing statement.” These typically say that the president intends to not enforce parts of the law because he sees it as unconstitutional.
*   *   *   *
The actual effect of the signing statement, however, is nil. It does not in any way limit the reach or finality of the law. Indeed, the statement does not even purport that parts of the law are unconstitutional or unenforceable. Nor could the president easily have done so: Congress in passing the law used core Article I powers that the president cannot unilaterally restrict — in particular, the powers to regulate foreign commerce and the federal courts.

A very pretty Constitutional argument.  However, Republican President GWB cemented into government protocol the idea that a 'signing statement' effectively creates a line-item veto.  It states how the law is going to be enforced, and how the President interprets a law is how he is going to make it operate.

After all, who is going to complain? The Executive Branch is just that, the branch that executes.  As Richard Nixon so aptly said: "When the President does it, it's not illegal."  You can bay to the moon all you want, the man with the keys drives the car.

Republicans invented power politics as a way around the Constitution.  But what goes around, comes around.  Obama will nullify the anti-boycott provisions...he's openly saying so.

Not interested in your views again on Republicans which you are obsessed about

What I am interested about is how many now are making a stand against racists

Didge wrote:Not interested in your views again on Republicans which you are obsessed about

Facts are facts...they can't be expunged by spin.

You mean opinions, which are subjective

Again not interested

Didge wrote:You mean opinions, which are subjective

Again not interested

If you can't recognize facts...I agree, perhaps you don't belong in the debate.

The debate and thread is on new provisions made into law which denies racists the harm they do.

If you cannot figure that, then again it seems you want to derail this thread with your obsession and hate of Republicans

That simply bores me, go elsewhere

Didge wrote:The debate and thread is on new provisions made into law which denies racists the harm they do.

If you cannot figure that, then again it seems you want to derail this thread with your obsession and hate of Republicans

That simply bores me, go elsewhere

Putting aside the gratuitous inflammatory adjectives, I know full well what the law was intended to do. The conversation is elsewhere, didge.

Over here...Dr. Obama has entered a 'signing statement', which specifies how he will ignore the anti-boycott provisions. Where does that leave the law?

Is it elsewhere or you deciding it should be?

Again stay on topic

As to the law why are you asking me?

Do you not know?

Didge wrote:Is it elsewhere or you deciding it should be?

Again stay on topic

As to the law why are you asking me?

Do you not know?

You are not following this very perceptively.  Even the Washington Post is bringing the issue of 'signing statements' up sua sponte, in the second paragraph of the article, and you are not catching it.  

The article goes on to say:

Washington Post wrote:"The actual effect of the signing statement, however, is nil. It does not in any way limit the reach or finality of the law. Indeed, the statement does not even purport that parts of the law are unconstitutional or unenforceable."

 
The Washington Post is certainly showing a lot of concern for 'signing statements' if they are not interested.

I think it is the gist of the article.  And I do know, and I am telling you...what do you think prompted this discussion?

I think you are not telling me anything here

Picking out a single statement is nulified when you fail to understand this is now processed into law

Again its best if you continue with what is said


Thus after Obama’s signature, the provisions of the law that apply to Israeli-controlled territory are as much binding legislation as the rest of the bill.

didge wrote:Thus after Obama’s signature, the provisions of the law that apply to Israeli-controlled territory are as much binding legislation as the rest of the bill.

Unfortunately...Not!

A signing statement qualifies, and changes a piece of legislation. The signing statement says how the executive branch will treat the law.

Yes, Obama has signed the legislation into law...after changing the meaning, specifically nullifying the anti-boycott provisions. You need to take a Basic American Government course.

I need not take anything as of yet you have not told me anything I do not know

Do you really think he is now going to go against this legislation and look a dick

So again are you telling me anything here

Nope, just your usual drivel and of course your obsession of hate with Republicans

Well, you seemed to be saying that the issue of the 'signing statement' was off-point.  Yet, there is was in the second paragraph of the Washington Post article, you posted!  The article goes on in paragraph after paragraph making an argument about the efficacy of 'signing statements'.

The issue of 'signing statements' came to a head during the administration of George W. Bush.  See, Bush's Tactic of Refusing Laws Is Probed, an article by Michael Abromowitz, also appearing in the Washington Post back in 2006.  That article said:

Washington Post wrote:A panel of legal scholars and lawyers assembled by the American Bar Association is sharply criticizing the use of "signing statements" by President Bush that assert his right to ignore or not enforce laws passed by Congress.

In a report to be issued today, the ABA task force said that Bush has lodged more challenges to provisions of laws than all previous presidents combined.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/23/AR2006072300511.html

Bush survived that challenge, and so did 'signing statements'.  If you know about 'signing statements', and you read your own posting (of the article), then stop denying that it's not a part of the topic.

Yes, Obama is going to follow accepted practice, established by GWB, and ignore the anti-boycott provisions in the law.

No you are still not telling me anything I do not know

I could care less about Bush, change the record as your boring

Again the point at hand is if Obama would go against this legislation

I very much doubt that

No, you are still not telling me anything I do not know

I could care less about Bush, change the record as your boring

Again the point at hand is if Obama would go against this legislation

I very much doubt that

Didge wrote:No, you are still not telling me anything I do not know

I could care less about Bush, change the record as your boring

Again the point at hand is if Obama would go against this legislation

I very much doubt that

Why wouldn't he?? It's been established protocol for well over ten years. He'd be a fool not to follow established protocol, laid down and defended by the opposite party...just because your sophomoric understanding of American political procedures is alarmed by it.

Welcome to my world!

Again he is not an idiot and at the end of the day after signing as I stated he will look an idiot and also racist

He is not that kind of an idiot

A group that targets one nation on claims to human rights abuses, made up claims to apartheid and other wrongs claimed to deligitimize a nation ignoring many nations that are, is a racist organisation


We now see some of the lefts as the biggest champions of antisemitism

Didge wrote:Again he is not an idiot and at the end of the day after signing as I stated he will look an idiot and also racist

He is not that kind of an idiot

A group that targets one nation on claims to human rights abuses, made up claims to apartheid and other wrongs claimed to deligitimize a nation ignoring many nations that are, is a racist organisation


We now see some of the lefts as the biggest champions of antisemitism

Idiot? Racist? Made up claims of apartheid? Antisemitism? All of the adjectives in the world won't change the game, once established. It is what it is.

Obama signed the signing statement openly, and without qualification. Now--at least ten years too late--you are shocked that a 'signing statement' is what it says it is?

What are you saying? That it isn't a fact. That you can't believe it happened? It's in your own Washington Post article, fcs. It's telling you that Dr. Obama has signed the 'signing statement'. That's like saying Gaza never shot missiles off at Israel. Can't believe it? Believe it. It is what it is.

Well that proves again you fail to understand a single point being made

Never made any of the invented now claims you make on me, which is typical of you Quill, when  you are desperate for a debate

Many of the claims made against Israel are designed to deligitimize, just as Hitler did so with the Jews. There is little difference and where some are trying to make Israel a Pariah state, to the extent it will lose support and have to fight once against for its very survival
The left cannot grasp this and they mainly think in contraidctions. Some extreme left will not be jappy until they actually see the extermination of the Jews

I am glad the US has followed suit and made such boycotts as racist and wrong
Israel does do wrongs and should have criticism for them, but not the zealous driven hate by some that wish for nothing more than the eradication of Israel

Now I have things to do, look elsewhere for your debate, as its clear you fail to understand any of this at all

Laters

Didge wrote:Well that proves again you fail to understand a single point being made

Never made any of the invented now claims you make on me, which is typical of you Quill, when  you are desperate for a debate

Many of the claims made against Israel are designed to deligitimize, just as Hitler did so with the Jews. There is little difference and where some are trying to make Israel a Pariah state, to the extent it will lose support and have to fight once against for its very survival
The left cannot grasp this and they mainly think in contraidctions. Some extreme left will not be jappy until they actually see the extermination of the Jews

I am glad the US has followed suit and made such boycotts as racist and wrong
Israel does do wrongs and should have criticism for them, but not the zealous driven hate by some that wish for nothing more than the eradication of Israel

Now I have things to do, look elsewhere for your debate, as its clear you fail to understand any of this at all

Laters

You're upset, didge. When the adrenaline settles back down, you'll be able to think it through. In the meantime, have a nice day.