In 1787, the country’s Founding Fathers were debating the new country’s commitment to personal and religious freedoms and the need to formalize civil liberties. James Madison had been inspired by a group of jailed Baptist Ministers as it became evident that a Bill of Rights would ensure adoption of what became the US Constitution.
Adopted in 1791, that Bill of Rights began with the First Amendment which stated “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press, or the right of the People to peacefully assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Today, that First Amendment is internationally recognized and held in great esteem by every American as a cherished symbol of the country’s origins and embodies an essential dedication to its Constitutionally Republican form of government.
Despite the struggles and crisis of modern day life, Americans still value their First Amendment as a unique and special gift to be preserved and protected from any challenge to its authority or opposition from any adversary.
Two hundred fifty years ago, our Founding Fathers were spouting impolite words about King George III. From that time, the default rule has been that ‘free speech’ even if it is rude, inappropriate, offensive or disrespectful is ‘protected speech’.
Standing the test of time, the Supreme Court (Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 1989) decision still in effect today, ruled that burning the American flag is protected by the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble…”
*****
After returning from a month long summer recess, the House of Representatives failed to fulfill its obligation to represent the best interests of the American people in their struggle with an inflation/cost of living crisis and an increasing escalation of the Wars in Ukraine and Iran.
Instead, on September 3 as the only item on the House floor that day, the House voted to adopt an irrelevant, meaningless AIPAC endorsed bill, H.R. 4795 known as the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act which was approved on a final roll call vote of (237-169).
That vote included thirty three Democrats along with the remaining GOP House contingent, minus two GOP Members (Rep Massie and Rep. Davidson). Twenty seven bipartisan Members opted for Not Voting.
Given the Act’s origin and not coincidentally, 31 of the 33 Democrats are AIPAC recipients who received a total of $83 Million while 322 House Members won their 2024 elections with AIPAC backing.
With a slim GOP House majority (218 – 214), the full House frequently adopts passage including occasional wayward Democrats, frequently joined together in support of Israel First which ultimately undermines the integrity of the US Constitution.
On its first day back in Session on August 31, the House Rules Committee, which is usually the last stop before a piece of legislation is forwarded to the House floor for a final vote, held a hearing on the Act.
Unexpectedly, consideration of a less than relevant bill that will contribute nothing to improve the every day life of Americans, was adopted via a ‘closed’ rule on a 7-4 vote precluding any amendments being offered on the House Floor.
What is a tad unusual is that the Act had not yet been reported out of its originating House Committee on Education and Workforce which adopted the Act on September 3.
Committee Chair Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich) praised Committee passage (24-9) describing the Act’s purpose “to combat anti-Israel Discrimination on College Campuses” which is a significantly more specific definition than the original description of the bill.
There is a somewhat disconcerting message regarding political chicanery embedded in those numbers as to why a relatively immaterial legislation was upfront and first on the House floor while the country continues to reel in chaos and uncertainty.
*****
Not surprisingly, adoption of HR 4795 represents a major challenge to the First Amendment which “prohibits an institution that participates in a non expressive commercial boycott of Israel from being eligible for Federal funds” and requires each institution to “annually certify that students are not unreasonably obstructed from participating in academic programs in Israel,…”
In other words, HR 4795 depends on repudiation of the First Amendment to be considered viable legislation which would most directly affect the relationship of Israel with American Colleges and Universities.
The Act represents a politically motivated nitch for Israel to claim authority over US sovereignty related to its University/Colleges as it portrays a narrow exaggeration of potential discrimination touting Israel’s fear that it will be treated ‘different from other countries’.
As if a misnomer, the Act does not support either education or academic freedom with the goal to delete Federal funding from American Colleges and Universities which participate in any ‘boycott’ against Israel.
In addition, the Act adds an administrative burden requiring each educational institution to annually certify that a ‘boycott’ has not been conducted against the apartheid state of Israel at risk of losing Title VI funding.
In addition, threatening Title IV student aid for any participant of a ‘boycott’ by any educational institution’s participation against Israel is irrelevant since ‘boycotts’ are not considered an illegal act or would survive a Constitutional challenge.
As written, the Act would attempt to penalize students and American Universities from what might be considered ‘hate speech’ or ‘anti semitic’ despite that all are legally protected ‘free speech.’
HR 4795 threatens the First Amendment with a misuse of federal funding in order to monitor protected political speech and related expressive activity.
Specifically identifying the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement is also largely irrelevant since no American educational institution has ever endorsed or attempted to adopt BDS yet the Act threatens the loss of Title VI funding.
As loosely defined, ‘boycott’ could refer to any rejection, ban, embargo or exclusion which could be interpreted as critical or negative regarding support for Israel, none of which would constitute a First Amendment violation.
What is relevant, however, is that Israel has reason to oppose BDS as an effective nonviolent Palestinian-led movement since 2005 that supports Palestinian rights in promoting boycotts, divestments, and economic sanctions.
It is of special note that academic boycotts by Brazil, Norway, Spain, Belgium and the U of Amsterdam suspended academic collaborations with Israel beginning in 2022 through 2024/2025.
Dean of the NY House delegation, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), the most senior Jewish member of Congress, saw the Act as a potential threat to free speech and responded with strong opposition as an unconstitutional attack on free speech: “a direct and gross violation of the First Amendment” and “the latest assault by the Trump Administration” on the nation’s academic institutions.
It is not the first time that the Trump Administration has attempted to violate the First Amendment and penalize American Universities in an attempt to deport and deny visas to foreign students who participated in Palestine protests.
U.S. District Judge Noel Wise stated that “in the United States, freedom of speech belongs to the people. It is not the government’s to take.” With respect to HR 4795, the House is acting as its representative of the Government.
The court system of the United States has, on the basis of the First Amendment and its principle of freedom of speech, generally ruled against attempts to censor ‘hate’ speech.
*****
In a nutshell, any piece of pending legislation is technically sponsored only by an American elected to Congress; in this case, Rules Committee Chair Rep. Virgina Foxx (R – NC) became ‘manager’ of the Act.
Nevertheless, it is understood that the majority of Zionist oriented legislation proposed for House adoption is originally created and/or proposed by AIPAC or other related political action committee which owes its existence to a foreign nation.
Since the JFK Administration, Israel has refused to abide by FARA, the Federal Agents Registration Act which facilitates evaluation of each country’s foreign agent functions.
No foreign country is ever authorized to participate in the American legislative process with the only option being a willing Member’s financial sponsorship which may be tacit and unspoken but clearly understood.
That sponsorship may offer an immoral process to guide a proposed law through the legislative process on to the House floor for enactment. That is exactly where AIPAC donations are so accommodating and convincing with passage, as it receives payback for its generosity.
Clearly, every Member of the House knows better. Since it appears there are a majority of House Members have been sufficiently compensated to alter their beliefs, willing to vote subversion of the First Amendment who are not influenced by its historic standing, its language and its intent, it may be time for retirement or political realignment rather than re election.
While the American two party political system and its leadership may agree on major foreign policy objectives with little Congressional opposition to the Iran war while Israel moves in to take the reins of US foreign policy (see Section 219 NDAA) and may cultivate the facade of different partisan politics; they are, in reality, the same Uniparty as many roll call votes confirm, with few deep political values or principles except lining their own pockets.
Trump, who promised dissolution of the Deep State, has allowed its domination of political decisions.
IF the Act is adopted by the Senate, which may be doubtful since the Senate has legislative tools at its disposal as well as a devoted band of true Constitutionalists which might block enactment, the Act’s authority as adopted law headed for a Presidential signature, should be legally challenged asap.
A consistent, decisive legal opinion would benefit rather than allow the country to experience a layer of outrage with extinction of its beloved, historic First Amendment conducted by a foreign nation and elected pretend servants of the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 2).