In 2017 the State of Texas allowed for SB89 to be passed in its name. The bill alleged to penalize the boycott, divest and sanctions (BDS) movement in regards to application of BDS pertaining to “the Nation of Israel.” This law was passed concurrently to changes regarding sanctions BY TEXAS of Iran and South Sudan. I contended upon inspection of these laws and their placement in the applicable Texas code that they provided evidence of manipulation of investment schemes that were references for illegal hedging activity that could be identified via other actions. Notable at the time was the activities surrounding a case filed by the Houston Fire Department that was decided in June of 2017, for example. There was also evidence in regards to the identification of “Lloyd’s Banking Group” on a list of sanctioned entities regarding investments in Iran despite the fact that Lloyd’s of London is one of -- and in some cases, the -- primary references for certain insurance code references. I ended up filing a report with an organization identified through an effort to contact Scotland Yard in London and was given a report number in September of 2018 to the best of my recollection. So far as I know that report was not closed. 

 

I contend these “BDS” laws, specific to Israel, violate the Texas Constitution in a number of ways. I submitted an initial argument via notice in Cause No. 17-0622 in January or February of 2018, which was a separate charge connected to an official challenge to the state regarding actions by members of and in the name of the State Bar of Texas. (See Notice in Cause No. 17-0622).

 

There are a number of both state and federal considerations regarding the constitutionality of these laws:

1. That Texas is not a sovereign nation and as a state engaged in a through the federal compact that is beholden to the Constitution of the United States, and insofar as it has refused to repudiate its relationship with the federal compact of states, including PRIOR to engaging these BDS laws, that these laws encroach upon the federal law regarding treaties between nations and violate the Treaty of Amity Between the United States and Israel, specific to most-favored nation status protections. 

2. That insofar as Israel later declared itself to be a “Jewish” nation as official state policy, that engaging a BDS policy as is written in the current (as of 2019, the last time hardcover books of law were available) form, that such agreements violate several provisions of the Texas Constitution regarding privileging of sects and non-discrimination in regards to rights to worship.

3. That honoring such considerations regarding a “contract” with Israel violates the Bill of Rights regarding the “impair[ing] of contracts” concerning the State of Texas. The Constitution of [the State of] Texas IS a contract between the State and the People of Texas and no other contract can violate the obligations the State has to provide for the People. This concerns both Israel’s nation status relative to Texas as a state engaged in the federal compact of states, but also in consideration of Israel’s status as an occupier of lands not officially recognized as “state” lands by virtue of protections and privileges provided by “the Nation of Israel” to the People of Israel.

4. That elements of the Texas Comptroller Code specifically selecting Israel as a “permanent funder” of bonds and its reference in the “BDS” laws through acknowledgement in regards to specific investments -- including the teachers retirement system -- call into question additional considerations of the above-referenced Constitutional violations.

5. That preclusions on “religious tests” as a means by which to access the “public trust” put additional scrutiny on not only the intent but the means by which the “BDS” laws are to be enforced and what the implications are for violators. 

In regards to the above-mentioned, another consideration takes effect when evaluating the Executive Order by Pres. Donald J. Trump from Fall of 2020 regarding “divestment” in companies that provide assistance to the Chinese military. There is a reported deadline by which all investments are to be divested -- Nov. 30, 2021 -- but because there has been no disclosure in regards to this Executive Order and the Executive Order that Pres. Barack Obama issued in his lame duck sessions regarding the Global Health Security Initiative, the specific relations between Israel and the aforementioned are of concern. The Obama EO includes a five-year deadline that expires near or on the end of November of 2021. Additionally, concerns regarding the Memorandum of Understanding between the State of California and Israel on cooperation regarding biotechnology and the gubernatorial commission from the Texas Business Operations Code to take effect on Sept. 1, 2005 regarding the Commission on Biotechnology, Biomedicine, Nanotechnology and Bioengineering are necessary for determinations on how to address the Constitutional concerns. Finally, evaluation of information regarding students enrolled in public schools whose parents were active duty military to take effect on Sept. 1, 2007 and reported in a 2008 report by the Texas Senate must be performed to be fully apprised of the ramifications of NOT challenging the obvious Constitutional violations of the 2017 “BDS” laws.

 

5:13 pm CST

1 Nov 2021