New York Governor Andy Cuomo was the darling of the social justice warriors when, by executive fiat, he imposed affirmative consent on the state college campuses.  That he did so in lieu of law, by executive order, disturbed them not in the least. Cuomo issued another executive order, and this time it’s gotten their panties in a twist. What’s different?

Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo of New York ordered agencies under his control on Sunday to divest themselves of companies and organizations aligned with a Palestinian-backed boycott movement against Israel.

Wading into a delicate international issue, Mr. Cuomo set executive-branch and other state entities in opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or B.D.S., which has grown in popularity in some quarters of the United States and elsewhere, alarming Jewish leaders who fear its toll on Israel’s international image and economy.

The B.D.S. movement is relatively unknown outside of academia. It’s one of the generic irrational choices made by SJWs, wrapped up under the category of “justice,” because the clueless but deeply passionate, for reasons unknown, have decided that their team should be on the side of the Palestinians and against Israel.  As with almost all SJW ideas of justice, it’s all passion, no thought.

It’s not that there aren’t serious concerns about a complex relationship and a problematic history, but these kids have no clue about that.* It’s just the usual, mindless good and evil thing. And it has manifested itself in simplistic anti-semitism. Kinda ironic that the proclaimed anti-haters are the haters, but then, that’s what comes of the feelz.

But even if the B.D.S. movement is idiotic, even if Israel (for better or worse) is the only democracy in the region, the most tolerant nation in the Middle East and a critical ally for the U.S., people are allowed to believe in idiotic ideas. This is America, and every American is entitled to be as stupid as he wants to be.

Enter Andy and his executive order.

According to the executive order, Mr. Cuomo will command the commissioner of the Office of General Services to devise a list over the next six months of businesses and groups engaged in any “boycott, divestment or sanctions activity targeting Israel, either directly or through a parent or subsidiary.”

That B.D.S. is idiocy is irrelevant. It’s free speech. It’s protected. And like his wrongful imposition of affirmative consent without legislative approval, Andy’s use of executive fiat to impose a counter-boycott is both ultra vires and a violation of the First Amendment.

In a New York Times op-ed, Daniel Sieradski, who is described as “founder of Progressive Jews PAC, which advocates for progressive Jewish issues,” challenges Cuomo’s order.

The movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, known asB.D.S., is a strategy intended to combat Israel’s nearly 50-year occupation of the Palestinian territories in the West Bank and Gaza, a situation that three former Israeli prime ministers, as well as Secretary of State John Kerry, have warned would become akin to apartheid if allowed to continue.

By describing Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza as an “occupation,” Sieradski reveals his denial of history and reality. Still, his personal view (as this isn’t the view of B.D.S.) is slightly more nuanced than most.

I oppose Israel’s occupation and I want the Palestinians to have equal rights and self-determination. Still, I do not support a boycott that targets Israel as a whole. While I avoid buying products from companies that operate in Israeli settlements, I do so out of commitment to the two-state solution and my belief that the occupation endangers Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.

It’s kinda like claiming to be a religious Roman Catholic while believing in the right to an abortion. Either you believe in the religion or you don’t. It’s not a Chinese menu, and you don’t get to pick only the parts that you agree with. But I digress.

But I also believe that economic boycott is a legitimate form of political expression, one that the government has no business restricting by withholding state business.

And indeed, he’s right. This is clearly political expression. Whether it’s “legitimate” is irrelevant. Whether it’s “political” is irrelevant. Whether it’s batshit crazy is irrelevant. The only relevant inquiry is whether it’s unprotected expression, whether it falls within a categorical exception to the First Amendment.  It does not.

Aside from Sieradski lapsing into a series of logical fallacies in support of his position, from false analogies to vapid appeals to authority, which the Times shockingly prints because it refuses to be the gatekeeper against irrationality, he raises the secondary problem, that Cuomo accomplishes this First Amendment violation on his own:

While bills in other states have, for better or worse, gained legislators’ approval, Mr. Cuomo’s executive order is the first to be instituted without democratic ratification. After it became clear a bill with the same purpose would not pass the State Assembly, Mr. Cuomo decided he wanted to take “immediate action,” as he put it at the order’s signing, joking that the legislative process was often “a tedious affair.”

The legislative process is “often ‘a tedious affair’.” It’s supposed to be, and when it isn’t, we end up with laws like the USA PATRIOT Act. While using the law to silence the B,D.S. movement would be unconstitutional no matter how idiotic it is, using an executive order to do so undermines any purported legitimacy.  Does this matter, given that it’s unconstitutional regardless?  Well, to the extent that the use of executive orders (and the euphemistically named “guidance”) to circumvent the legislative process has become rampant, it does.

It is unconstitutional for the Governor of the State of New York to silence expression with which he disagrees. And it is wrong to do so unilaterally. And it is wrong to unilaterally undermine the “tedious” legislative process when social justice warriors like the outcome. Today they hate Cuomo for acting, where they thought he was the ginchiest when he unilaterally imposed affirmative consent. You can’t have it both ways. Not the SJWs. Not Andy.

*There is no question that Israeli policies regarding the “occupied territories” are, and should be, subject to question and challenge, just as every U.S. policy should be subject to scrutiny and criticism. It’s not that people who question American policy hate America, but governmental decisions should be questioned.

On the other hand, B.D.S. ignores that Israel didn’t go to war against the Palestinians to seize lands, but was attacked by its Arab neighbors (and has been under constant attack since its founding as the Palestinians’ official position continues to be the eradication of Israel). And on the third hand, there is an expectation that Israel will be better than its neighbors, deal with Palestinians in as humane a way as possible, whether they do the same in return or not.