Portnoy’s Complaint: A Union Is Organizing His Barstool Sports Blog

In 1969, Philip Roth published a highly controversial book, Portnoy’s Complaint, featuring a lust-ridden Jewish bachelor whose sexual conquests and detailed masturbation episodes may have warped a teenage Jeffrey Epstein, also Jewish and consumed by insatiable lust.

But I digress. David Portnoy owns Barstool Sports, a trendy blog. Last week he tweeted that he’d fire “on the spot” any employee who as much as discussed forming a union.

David Portnoy’s complaint reflects the success that writer guilds (read: unions) are having forming unions and getting much better pay and benefits.

You don’t need to be a labor lawyer to suspect that threatening to fire somebody for forming a union violates the National Labor Relations Act.

Adding more juice to the story, AOC jumped on this be tweeting, “If you’re a boss tweeting firing threats to employees trying to unionize, you are likely breaking the law &can be sued, in your words, ‘on the spot.’”

Forgive me for yawning. I’ve been reading labor law opinions from the NLRB and courts since 1985. Yes, AOC is correct. But by the time the NLRB litigation runs its course, Twitter will be replaced by the next new trolling platform.

Labor unions have found more creative ways to handle people like Portnoy. With social media, it’s not hard for writers to flood Portnoy’s Trumpian Twitter feed with Scabby the Rat posts.

That’s mild.

If they’re unified, they can stage a walkout similar to Google employees—and the other day, Uber and Lyft drivers— and get a mess of bad publicity for their faux tough-guy employer.

Portnoy has won Round 1, I suppose. But since his blog features sports material, I’d remind him that early leads often vanish by late in the game. My money is on the creative talent that he is threatening to fire.

Thanks to AB for the idea!

Why Would President Trump Limit Citizenship for Military Children Born Overseas?

U.S. Base in Germany

At first glance, this makes no sense. Our troops make great sacrifices for our freedom. Deployments are usually hard on families. Why, then, would the president enact a policy that denies citizenship to children born in places such as Germany, Kuwait, South Korea and other foreign countries?

The short answer has two parts: 1. He is determined to change a citizenship right that has existed in the U.S. since 1608. 2. To do this, his best shot is to begin by invoking his authority as Commander-in-Chief. In other words, he is cynically using military babies to start building a larger case for stripping citizenship from a much broader group of civilians.

Some history: In the reign of Edward III, after plague and war forced English subjects to leave the kingdom, questions arose concerning children born in foreign lands: Could they inherit property in England?

A statute in 1368 by Edward III recognized that infants born in Calais “and elsewhere within the lands and seignories pertaining to the king beyond the sea” had the same inheritance rights “as other born infants within the realm.”

Edward extended birthright citizenship to babies born to ex-pat English people because this would allow those French-born “Brits” to inherit land in London. In other words, this was a way to incentivize people to come back to a devastated isle that lost one-third of its people and much of its economy.

The U.S. has enacted similar statutes with fairly similar reasoning. We want people to serve in our military and not put their kids’ citizenship at risk.

But here is the kicker: The president can probably win this case because this grant of citizenship is not in the Constitution (as is the main birthright clause, stating that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens”). Plus, it’s very hard to find court cases that limit the president’s powers as Commander-in-Chief.

The Trump lawyers have been smart about crafting the opening phase of an immoral and unconstitutional assault on the main birthright citizenship clause.
(Why do I say immoral? Because the likely consequence of ending birthright citizenship is that these children are "stateless"-- they are not U.S. citizens, and not likely citizens of any other country. They can be deported out to sea.)
If you want to read a fascinating opinion—and a recent one at that— check out Elliott v. Cruz, 137 A.3d 646 (Pa. 2016), here https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-commonwealth-court/1733401.html.

It’s about Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother. A proxy for Donald Trump—a voter in Pennsylvania— sued to have Cruz declared as foreign-born. That would make him ineligible to be president—another form of birtherism on the part of Trump. The court ruled in favor of Cruz, stating in part:

The Framers were well aware of the need to assure full citizenship rights to the children born to American citizens in foreign countries. Their English forebears had made certain that the rights of such children were protected, and it is hardly likely that the Framers intended to deal less generously with their own children. The evidence, although not overwhelming, unquestionably points in the direction of such generosity.

Can President Trump Adjourn Congress? Yes.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has temporarily suspended Parliament.

Is there a U.S. version of this extraordinary suspension of democracy?

Yes. 
See the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 3: The president “may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper.”

Harry Truman was the most recent president to use this power—in his case to force them back into session. The last time Congress was forced into session,

But how does this work for adjournment?

To tee-up this situation a president needs to have effective control of one chamber of Congress. 
President Trump and Senate Leader Mitch McConnell are closely allied.

Hypothetically, let’s imagine that pressure builds to call a major gun bill passed— or impeachment proceedings or production of his tax returns— in the House. Senate Leader McConnell could adjourn the Senate, provided he had the votes.

This would pressure Speaker Pelosi to adjourn the House—but she would not agree to do so.

Enter the president: Seizing on this discrepancy, he could “settle” the matter by adjourning the entire Congress.

To see a brief legal opinion (very readable, short, informative) that President Truman used to convene Congress, see https://www.justice.gov/file/20711/download.

There is no such legal opinion for adjourning Congress. Boris Johnson may have inspired this kind of extraordinary planning by the White House.

The bottom line is that this power is fully constitutional even though it feels profoundly undemocratic.

RIP, Magna Carta (1215-2019): Democracy, It Was Nice to Know You

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s suspension of Parliament is monumentally historic—something that should deeply concern anyone living in the U.K., but also the U.S.

Constitutions are dying where they once flourished. “Conservative” autocrats are to blame.

The Magna Carta was a political settlement reached in 1215 between King John of England and rebel barons. 
John ruled England as despot. 
Bowing to intense pressure, he agreed to a charter of rights for “the people” (barons): protection of church rights, protection from illegal imprisonment, access to swift justice, and limits on feudal payments to the Crown. A council of 25 barons administered the agreement.

America’s governmental institutions draw directly from the Magna Carta. The Massachusetts Bay Company, and Virginia Charter of 1606, specifically drew up the first colonial governments based on the Magna Carta.
When American colonists fought against Britain, they were fighting not so much for new freedom, but to preserve liberties and rights that they believed to be enshrined in Magna Carta.
Our Constitution and Bill of Rights draw directly from portions of this 1215 landmark in the progress of humanity.
***

If PM Johnson’s coup against elected government succeeds, how will this affect the United States of America?

For the moment, a 704 year tradition of limiting the power of a king (or prime minister) has been suspended. If we truly love freedom, we should all be worried.

Join Our Class! Ideas on Race and Immigration From 1693, 1751 & 1787

I have the privilege of teaching a Campus Honors course for freshmen and sophomores at UIUC (on immigration, race, and labor in America). We begin by reading three views on the subject from leading politicians and commentators from 1751, 1787, and 1693. The students will discuss their views on these ideas and relevance to today. 

I invite you to read and comment!

Ben Franklin (1751): Europe is generally full settled with Husbandmen, Manufacturers, &c. and therefore cannot now much increase in People: America is chiefly occupied by Indians, who subsist mostly by Hunting.

Land being thus plenty in America, and so cheap as that a labouring Man, that understands Husbandry, can in a short Time save Money enough to purchase a Piece of new Land sufficient for a Plantation, whereon he may subsist a Family.

So vast is the Territory of North-America, that it will require many Ages to settle it fully.... 

Which leads me to add one Remark: That the Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new Comers) wholly so. 

And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes, are generally of what we call a swarthy Complexion; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English, make the principal Body of White People on the Face of the Earth. I could wish their Numbers were increased.

And while we are, as I may call it, Scouring our Planet, by clearing America of Woods, and so making this Side of our Globe reflect a brighter Light to the Eyes of Inhabitants in mars or Venus, why should we in the Sight of Superior Beings, darken its People? Why increase the Sons of Africa, by Planting them in America, where we have so fair an Opportunity, by excluding all Blacks and Tawneys, of increasing the lovely White and Red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.

John Jay (1787) (A drafter of the U.S. Constitution): With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people— a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

John Locke (1693) (economist and political theorist who influenced drafters of the Declaration of Independence, 1776):

Naturalization is the safest & easiest way of increasing your people, which all wise governments have encouraged by privileges granted to the fathers of children amongst the Romans (he is referring to creating citizenship for foreign-born parents whose children were born in the Roman Empire). And that because People are the strength of any country or government this is too visible need proof. Tis the number of people that make the riches of any country.

This is evident in examples of all sorts I need mention but one & that is the comparison of Holland & Spain. The later (Spain) having all the advantages of situation & the yearly afflux of wealth out of its own dominions yet is for want of hands the poorest country in Europe. The other (Holland) ill situated but being graced with people abounding in riches.

And I ask whether England if half its people should be taken away would not proportionally decay in its strength & riches notwithstanding the advantages it has in its situation ports & the temper of its people?

If we look into the Reason of this we shall not think it strange. The Riches of the world do not lye now as formerly in having large tracts of good land which supplied abundantly the nation conveniencing of Eating & drinking …. but in Trade which brings in money & with that all things.

Trade consists in two parts & plenty of Hands is what contributes most to both.

Race and Space: 1917 and 2019

Jean Cramer, a candidate for city office in Michigan, recently said, “Keep Marysville a white community as much as possible.” As other candidates gasped, she added: “Seriously. In other words,no foreign-born. No foreign people.”

In my immigration and employment law class tomorrow, we are reading about a U.S. congressman, Denver Church, who promoted a law that would bar immigration from India and Japan.

He said these new immigrants should be excluded as the Chinese had been excluded decades before:

“California must be protected against the influx of Hindu and Japanese, not because we despise these people,” he assured, “for we despise none of the sons of Adam.”

Instead, he argued that Asians merely belong in Asia. “Back in the black past, far beyond the first glimmer of the torchlight of history, they united their destinies with the land in which they now reside, and we are anxious they should there remain.”

His idea became a law in 1917, called the Asiatic Barred Zone.

Then and now, this idea has been used to justify separating people by race: the world is composed of discrete “culture gardens,” separated by different habits and values. Asian Indians are a distinct people, with a unique culture: Therefore, they should stay in India. And so on.

Ms. Cramer’s views are not unusual, either by historical or current standards.

To be clear, I completely reject her view: America is enriched by its diversity.

Whatever you think about this, Ms. Cramer’s vision represents a long-running strain of American values that must be taken seriously.

Can a President “Order” a Private Company? Truman and Trump Push the Limits

President Donald Trump decreed on Friday that American companies must cut ties with China, tweeting that the U.S. firms “are hereby ordered to immediately start looking for an alternative.”

There is a bit of a parallel, this involving an anticipated strike by steelworkers at Youngstown Sheet & Tube.

In the midst of the Korean War, President Harry Truman ordered the federal government to seize and run this key steel manufacturing plant. With his Secretary of Commerce operating the plant, Truman planned to keep the mill open by preventing a strike or ordering replacements to take over the jobs left by strikers.

Owners of the company argued that a president has no power, not even as Commander-in-Chief, to take private property by issuing an executive order.

The Supreme Court sided with the company. The decision (Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer) is the single most important check on a president’s executive power.

Current conservatives on the Court— most notably, Justice Brett Kavanaugh— have argued for a more expansive reading of presidential powers. And two justices in the Youngstown case believed that Truman had constitutional authority to takeover a plant to make munitions during a war.

With Justice Ruth Ginsburg battling pancreatic cancer, I am not entirely certain the Youngstown case will be the farthest limit on presidential power— a broader precedent cannot be ruled out.

Postscript for all students: When your textbook says that the three branches of government are "co-equal," this is as true as saying the earth is flat.  

Should the U.S. Have Mandatory National Service?

There is a Democratic presidential candidate who is pitching this idea. John Delaney proposes that “all Americans would be required to serve their country for at least one year, with an option to serve for two. This requirement would apply to everyone upon turning 18, no exceptions.” 

Obviously, this idea has no traction—but it has long historical roots, some of which suggest that we should think seriously about this idea.

To begin, imagine how different Donald Trump would be if this were a requirement when he was a young adult. He’d get no deferment for bone spurs. He’d be spending his time on a public works project with a diverse group of Americans, perhaps in a forest creating a hiking path, or in a slum cleaning trash, or in a school with poor kids.

I have found that the practice dates to ancient times.

In the Third Dynasty of Ur (today, roughly Iraq) workers were required to perform “corvée duty” on public works (length of time not known)—but they were freed to care for their elderly (and probably ailing) mothers and fathers. That idea—time-off work to care for elderly parents—is itself worthy and underutilized in America.

In Egypt, there were awful and good uses of corvee labor—awful for building pyramids, good for creating irrigation systems that built Egypt’s agriculture and economy.

Ancient Israel also had corvee labor, some of which was overdone and created rebellion.

Rome and ancient England and France had compulsory labor.

China might have had it ("Conditions in early China are more obscure because only two texts from the Han period explicitly mention slave labor on farms, .... ")

Okay, you’re thinking, this is very un-American.

Nope. We’ve had it, from the early 1600s through the early 1900s.

Able-bodied men, ages 16-60, were required by counties or cities to devote 4 or 5 days each year of free labor to build bridges, roads, and other public infrastructure.

By the early 1900s, we substituted taxes for labor.

So, how is this even a possible discussion point for 2020 and beyond? Take the idea of “free” college tuition, a popular idea for Democrats. 

College is not free— taxpayers will pay for someone's “free” education. How fair is that? If John Delaney’s idea of mandatory national service were tied to “free” college, a person would earn that education—and receive a real-world education, too.

Will the American Flag Change? Probably.

Seward’s Folly— the purchase of Alaska from Russia— became, in time, Seward’s Great Idea. Sixty years ago, our flag changed as we added Alaska as a state. 

So, let’s give President Trump’s idea the benefit of the doubt: We will annex or purchase Greenland. 

That will leave us with two large territories without statehood (Puerto Rico and Greenland), separated by ocean waters. They will point out that the American Revolution was founded on the idea of no taxation without representation. Bowing to this withering hypocrisy, we will admit two states, one with white people and one with brown people, to our nation. Our flag will change.

So, you think that’s unlikely. I agree. But can we agree that we live in an age of identity politics? Maybe.

Let’s consider another scenario. Few, if any, leftist groups have a flag. Many white nationalist groups do have a flag. 

I have put the flag of Three Percent, a white identity, guns rights group at the top. 

They believe that America was founded when three percent of the colonists took up arms and carried the fight to the British. 

If we assume that the current existential culture war between liberals and conservatives ends with a decisive victory by white nationalists, we might visualize a version of Three Percent as the new flag.

As someone who increasingly views the American flag as a symbol of unity exploited to sow deep divisions in America, I now feel uncomfortable with our flag unless it is displayed ceremonially or at a sporting event, where the idea of unity is the point of showing the flag. If people with my values ultimately win out in this divisive climate, perhaps the flag will look different.

Until a few days ago, I never thought our flag would change. I have revised my thinking.

How Your Family Passed the Immigration Literacy Test: Peek at the Coming Literacy Test

Stephen Miller is not an immigration-restriction genius: He is simply using a playbook from the 1880s-1920s. The Trump administration has already signaled that it wants to rewrite immigration to admit only people who pass a literacy test. We had this policy in 1917 though it was ended by 1965.

The main effect of the policy is that it deterred immigration. Mostly, only literate people came after to the U.S. after 1917. That sounds good until you consider the success of immigrants before 1917— many of whom came to the U.S. as illiterate.

By the way, as of 1917 many Americans were probably incapable of passing the literacy test, though I speculate here.

Here is a brief but fascinating excerpt from a study done over 1922-1924:

“The illiteracy test clause of the Burnett-Smith Immigration Act of February 5, 1917, went into effect on May 5, 1917. Under the provisions of this act, all aliens over sixteen years of age, physically capable of reading who cannot read the English language or some other language or dialect, are excluded from admission to the United States.”

Now note how “racial group” was equated to nationality. That is where U.S. policy is heading: Americans are a race. Norwegians are a race. Haitians are a race. And so forth

“It will be seen that among the eleven racial groups having a smaller percentage debarred than the average for all races during the two years, four represent the new immigration, namely, the Finnish, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and the Hebrews. Of the races showing proportions debarred above 1.1 per cent, the French is the only one from northwestern Europe; while all the others (Mexicans excepted) are from southern and southwestem Europe. The races showing the highest percentages debarred on account of illiteracy are the Lithuanian, the Polish, the Bulgarian, Servian, and Montenegrin, and the Syrian. The Turkish shows the highest percentages debarred during the two years; however, it should be observed that this percentage is based upon a small number admitted. It is interesting to note that of the races showing the barred for the two years, the Polish, the Bulgarian, Servian and Montenegrin, and the Syrian show smaller percentages debarred on account of illiteracy in 1918-19 than in 1917-18.”

Obviously, some people prefer this policy. I would point out that the combination of tariffs from Smooth-Hawley and the severe immigration restrictions in the 1920s led to the worldwide collapse of the economy— the Great Depression.

Why Bras Won’t Be Made in the USA

Credit: The Lingerie Addict, explaining "The underwire and bone casings on this Chantal Thomass are sewn with a twin needle lockstitch. There are two parallel rows of --- stitching. Photo by K Laskowska"

President Trump has postponed a 25% tariff on bras—the rate is still 10%. But listen to Mark Corrado, the president of Leading Lady, which makes women’s underwear. As reported in the New York Times, he dangled a brassiere as he testified before a panel of government officials. “It’s a very difficult garment to make, and it takes a lot of precision to make it as well as they make it in China,” he said, pointing to the lace, the elastic shoulder straps and the metal hooks.

And here’s the kicker. It’s not just cost—it’s the lack of skilled labor in the U.S.

He explained that decades ago his company had five factories in the United States. He moved his plants to Central America, and then to China. Now, Americans have lost that expertise, he said.

“Most women in the rural areas grew up sewing,” Mr. Corrado said. “That situation has totally changed.”

A bra war broke out between China, the EU, and the U.S. in 2005. The Bush administration imposed a quota on bras coming in from China. The EU did the same. These efforts failed because China had a large supply of women with the necessary sewing skills to make a bra.

European bra makers adapted by switching to high-end lingerie, not the cheap stuff.
China has had a virtual monopoly on bra manufacturing since then.

To get a better sense of this, I asked Google how many stitches are in a bra. There is no real answer: It depends on the bra, and as some readers know, bras vary widely in construction, materials, quality, and price.

The best source I located was “Lingerie Construction Basics, Part 1: Most Common Types of Stitch” (https://www.thelingerieaddict.com/2018/03/lingerie-construction-types-of-stitch.html).

To summarize, I quote:

It’s also crucial to remember there is a big difference in the construction techniques used by brands at different levels. Small, independent designers don't have access to the same machinery as large, corporate design houses. A bra produced by a mass manufactured label may use heavily industrialized techniques, like twin needle lockstitches and cover stitches - stitches an individual person who hand makes lingerie can only dream of. It doesn't mean one is necessarily better than the other. Part of learning about garment quality is the context and purpose of the garment.

In a factory setting, each different stitch will require a separate industrial machine. These machines can be big financial investments, and often require a great deal of skill and training to operate at their best. Many of these stitches can also be found in smaller domestic sewing machines. Domestic sewing machines are often multi-purpose, offering many different stitch options. However, a domestic machine will often not stitch as accurately or quickly as its industrial counterparts.

***

By looking at just one common article of clothing, we get a clearer sense of how devastating the tariff policy is. The premise is to bring jobs back to America—but the administration hasn’t even asked whether America has the skilled labor to do this work. We don’t.

Bra manufacturers are scouring for other Asian locations but they report it will take up to five years to reconfigure their supply chains. Meanwhile, consumers will pay a lot more or put up with uncomfortable undergarments that they cannot replace due to price.

Woodstock’s Groovy Employment Law Legacy

Even if you were born long after 1969, Woodstock and its cultural influences probably affect you. Here are some key employment law cases that have roots in Woodstock.

Long Hair, Mustaches, Beards, and Employer Grooming Standards: Woodstock didn’t create long hair, but it highlighted the generational divide between young and older men over hair length. 

In Kelly v. Johnson (1976), a police officer challenged his employer’s prohibition of beards, and requirements for short hair and side burns. The Supreme Court upheld this regulation, rejecting the officer’s contention that the First Amendment gave him a right of self-expression. 

Sexualizing Women: Woodstock didn’t create the sexual revolution, but it highlighted the libertine norms of the then-younger generation. 

Southwest Airlines— which began operations in 1967— was a tiny carrier until they broke with tradition and attired their flight attendants in hot pants. Their market research showed that 70% of Southwest passengers were men who traveled on business. Connecting the dots of the male psyche, they reasoned that they could gain a marketing edge by capitalizing on the appearance of their flight attendants. At this time, every airline hired only women for flight attendants.

Along came Gregory Wilson, arguing that Southwest’s policy of hiring only women was sex discrimination. A Texas federal court agreed in Wilson v. Southwest Airlines (1981). Southwest changed from hot pants to khakis and polo shirts, while other airlines still dress flight attendants more formally.

Recreational Drugs: Woodstock didn’t inaugurate illicit drug use but it served as a visible embrace of psychoactive drugs. 

Just 14 years after Woodstock, President Reagan issued wide-ranging drug testing requirements for some federal employees—and also for certain private industries. In a broadly-worded opinion, the Supreme Court upheld drug testing in Railway Labor Executives Ass’n (a union) v. Von Raab (1989). Reagan intended for private sector employers to follow the government’s lead—and clearly, they did. 

Now drug testing has expanded from urine to blood testing, and from testing illicit drugs to testing illicit and licit drugs.

As Joann Worley would say on Laugh In, “Sock it to me.”  So I'll sock it to you with an emblematic photo of the irreverence that Woodstock inspired.

When Does “Personhood” Begin? Catholic, Baptist, Islamic and Jewish Views of “Ensoulment”

My editor for “The Unborn Citizen” at Georgetown Law Journal has asked me an important question: Can I justify my view that birthright citizenship attaches to an unborn person under Alabama’s anti-abortion law and constitution, which recognize variously that life begins (a) when a heartbeat is detected at six weeks (criminal law for physicians who conduct abortions), and (b) when a person is conceived, i.e., the uniting of a sperm and egg.

His question is helpful, not hostile. Join me on this brief journey,  and share your views on FB or at mhl@illinois.edu

In the brief space I am allotted, I now state:

By declaring that life begins at six weeks, the Alabama Act blurs the distinction between birth and conception as the starting point of life. Motivated by religious values, the law appears to reflect Catholic and Protestant, and Islamic views, that posit the beginning of personhood 40 days after conception, when ensoulment is thought to occur (Jewish law is more indeterminate).

Here are my sources, albeit hardly a comprehensive survey:

Catholic & Protestant:

Catholic thought appears to be more coherently organized around the idea of ensoulment at forty days, compared to a common Protestant view that personhood begins at conception. For a view on the Catholic perspective, see John Haldane & Patrick Lee, Aquinas on Human Ensoulment, Abortion and the Value of Life, 78 Philosophy 255, at 266 (Aquinas believed that the rational soul in males were ensouled at 40 days, and at 90 days for females); John T. Noonan, Jr., Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (1965), at 88, 91, 232 (Pope Innocent III and Pope Gregory IX recognized that a fetus was “vivified” after forty days).

A Protestant perspective, written with a substantial body of biblical citations, is R. Lucas Stamps, The Incarnation Demands a Pro-Life Position, The Ethics & Liberty Comm. Of the Southern Baptist Conv. (Dec. 21, 2015), at  https://erlc.com/resource-library/articles/the-incarnation-demands-a-pro-life-position:

And the New Testament makes it clear that this assumption of a human nature began at Christ’s conception, not at his birth. This is evident from Gabriel’s annunciation to Mary concerning the miraculous nature of Christ’s conception (Luke 1:26-37). The “power of the most High” would come upon Mary and would “overshadow” her, as the Spirit once hovered over the waters of creation (Gen. 1:2) and as the presence of God hovered over Israel of old like an eagle over its young (Deut. 32:11).

Islamic:

E.g., Sahin Aksoy, The Beginning of Human Life and Embryos: A Philosophical and Theological Perspective, 14 Reproductive BioMedicine Online (2007), available https://www.rbmojournal.com/article/S1472-6483(10)60736-5/pdf:

In another hadith, the Prophet Muhammad said: ‘when the nutfa [zygote] has been established in the womb for forty or forty-five nights, the angel comes and says: “My Lord, will he be wretched or fortunate?” and both these things would be written.

…

In the last hadith to be mentioned here, the Prophet Muhammad said: ‘when forty nights pass after the nutfa (zygote) gets into the womb, God sends the angel and gives him the shape. Then

He creates his sense of hearing, sense of sight, his skin, his flesh, his bones and then the angel says: “My Lord, would he be male or female?”….  

Compare Badawy A. B. Khitamy, Divergent Views on Abortion and the Period of Ensoulment, 13 Sultan Qaboos University Med J. 26 (2013), at 30, available in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3616796/pdf/squmj-13-26.pdf:

The Qur’an and the tradition of the Prophet Muhammad declared the ensoulment period to be about 120 days (4 lunar months plus 10 days) computed from the moment of conception, which is equivalent to 19 weeks and one day, or 134 days from a woman’s last menstrual period.

Jewish:

The primary Jewish law perspective appears to be that life begins when the head emerges during birth. See David Feldman, Birth Control in Jewish Law (1998), at 253 (Exodus 21:22 provides a woman who miscarries due to being struck by men who fight monetary compensation, but not “life for life” as stated in Exodus 21:23). In general, however, modern Jewish scholars offer differing views by saying that the timing of ensoulment is something that belongs to the “secrets of God.”

The Clintons, Alan Dershowitz— Or Mundane Work Factors in the Hanging of Jeffrey Epstein?

Alan Dershowitz has been accused by one of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims of having sex with her—and Prof. Dershowitz knows his way around the MCC (Metropolitan Correctional Center) where his former client was found hung. The Clintons always show up in a conspiracy theory.

Briefly, I suggest mundane workplace factors that may have contributed to this tragedy.

There is reporting that two of Epstein’s guards during the shift when he died were working overtime. One was working his fifth overtime shift of the week—a stunning number—and one was forced into overtime for Saturday night.

Clearly, there is a staffing problem at the MCC.

Did the 35-Day Federal Government Shutdown in December and January Cause a Spike in Turnover at MCC? 

Employees at this facility were required to work without being paid for over 35 days. That means that not only were they not being paid, but they also were precluded from working an “Uber job” to pay their bills. How many employees quit or retired due to the shutdown?

How Did Peak Summer Vacation Affect Staffing at MCC?

HR managers who read this blog will likely attest that the first week of August is a peak summer vacation time. Who takes vacation then? Usually high-seniority employees who have bidding rights over junior workers.

If there was a shortage of guards due to the shutdown, summer vacations could have made a bad situation worse. Staffing levels were likely at proper levels—but that explains how someone worked five overtime shifts last week at a maximum-security prison.

Was the B-Team Working in Epstein’s Segregated Housing Unit? 

That’s the implication of reading that a guard was forced into overtime. Usually, someone with junior seniority is forced to work overtime.

Can A Sinister Plot Be Aided and Abetted by A Stressed Group of Workers?  


My mundane theory does not preclude a sinister plot. In fact, a demoralized workforce is vulnerable to outside influences. 

***

More generally, this event signifies a failure of the federal government to do one of its essential jobs.

The same week of the Epstein hanging, the USDA was moving several hundred scientists from Washington D.C. to Kansas City, reportedly because they work on climate science and this was chosen as a method to force them to quit.

A State Department employee quit over his horror with the administration’s foreign policies and perceived support of white nationalism.

The intelligence community is roiled, again, over the president’s preference for a loyalist as head of the top intelligence agency.

Whatever the causes of Epstein’s untimely death, there are clear warning signs that key federal workers are being undermined, discouraged, and induced to leave government work.

Jail Time for HR: Lessons from the ICE Raids in Mississippi

The HR people at the food processing plants in Mississippi face possible criminal prosecution under state law.

Here is the short story. 
Federal law (IRCA [Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986]) requires employers to verify the legal status of job applicants when hiring people. Common documents are driver’s licenses, passports, and birth certificates.

The federal government has a voluntary online verification system, called E-verify. You can check your own eligibility there. It’s quick—a lot like a quick credit report check.

Why isn’t it a federal requirement? Because it has lots of false positives for unauthorized to work. People who change last names when they marry or divorce come up as false positives. So do people with hyphenated names or names with spaces, such as “De Rosa.”

Many red states require e-verify—and further, they impose serious criminal sanctions on employers who violate the state immigration law.

In Mississippi, the law requires e-verify. Stop and think: How did these companies hire so many people if they were e-verified?

The state law says:

“It shall be a felony for any person to accept or perform employment for compensation knowing or in reckless disregard that the person is an unauthorized alien with respect to employment…

Upon conviction, a violator shall be subject to imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year nor more than five (5) years, a fine of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) nor more than Ten Thousand Dollars $10,000.00), or both.”

***

Should someone who recklessly or knowingly hires an unlawful alien be imprisoned for 1-5 years? That is a question for us to consider.