4 ms·

Isn't that obvious that the oath is against the 1st amendment? Can't believe this.

by wuxb 8y ago

adrianmonk 8y ago
It probably isn't constitutional, but the process is that things don't get actually declared unconstitutional until someone with standing (this woman who lost her job) sues and the courts decide the question. And that's exactly what she's doing. The lawsuit names the 1st and 14th Amendments in its cause of action, says that political speech is important, and that there's Supreme Court precedent that boycotts count as political speech. Then it asks the judge to declare the law unconstitutional and unenforceable. As well as some other stuff like declaring void such provisions in existing contracts, issuing an injunction against including the provision in future contracts, etc.
- bb88 8y ago
  > until someone with standing... Unfortunately that isn't proven in this case, because proving that a person has standing can be an entire legal fight unto itself. First, arguably she's a contractor because she's signed a contract with the state of Texas. So she has to argue that protections of the first and fourteenth amendments extend to contractors. That's not necessarily a given. Second, it's a state issue, not necessarily a federal issue. IOW, she has to prove the federal constitution amendments are applicable to a state contract. Third, it must be that she was not hired due to the pro-israel loyalty language, and not for any other reason. That's just the standing. Then she has to prove that the language actually violates the first and fourteenth amendment, and it's unclear that it does.
  - mcphage 8y ago
    I don’t find your other arguments particularly compelling, but this one is definitely wrong: > Third, it must be that she was not hired due to the pro-israel loyalty language, and not for any other reason. She had already been hired, and worked for several years. The loyalty clause was then added, and she lost her job due to being unwilling to sign that clause. She has plenty of evidence that it was due to not signing (ie, her boss tried to get around her having to sign it, but was forced to conclude that it was unavoidable).

Isn't that obvious that the oath is against the 1st amendment? Can't believe this.

by wuxb 8y ago

Isn't that obvious that the oath is against the 1st amendment? Can't believe this.

It probably isn't constitutional, but the process is that things don't get actually declared unconstitutional until someone with standing (this woman who lost her job) sues and the courts decide the question. And that's exactly what she's doing. The lawsuit names the 1st and 14th Amendments in its cause of action, says that political speech is important, and that there's Supreme Court precedent that boycotts count as political speech. Then it asks the judge to declare the law unconstitutional and unenforceable. As well as some other stuff like declaring void such provisions in existing contracts, issuing an injunction against including the provision in future contracts, etc.

bb88 8y ago
> until someone with standing... Unfortunately that isn't proven in this case, because proving that a person has standing can be an entire legal fight unto itself. First, arguably she's a contractor because she's signed a contract with the state of Texas. So she has to argue that protections of the first and fourteenth amendments extend to contractors. That's not necessarily a given. Second, it's a state issue, not necessarily a federal issue. IOW, she has to prove the federal constitution amendments are applicable to a state contract. Third, it must be that she was not hired due to the pro-israel loyalty language, and not for any other reason. That's just the standing. Then she has to prove that the language actually violates the first and fourteenth amendment, and it's unclear that it does.
- mcphage 8y ago
  I don’t find your other arguments particularly compelling, but this one is definitely wrong: > Third, it must be that she was not hired due to the pro-israel loyalty language, and not for any other reason. She had already been hired, and worked for several years. The loyalty clause was then added, and she lost her job due to being unwilling to sign that clause. She has plenty of evidence that it was due to not signing (ie, her boss tried to get around her having to sign it, but was forced to conclude that it was unavoidable).