Slashdot Mirror
Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?
DustyShadow writes "Harvard's Jack Goldsmith and Lawrence Lessig have an interesting op-ed in Friday's Washington Post, arguing that it would be constitutionally dubious for President Obama to adopt the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as an executive agreement. '[T]he Obama administration has suggested it will adopt the pact as a "sole executive agreement" that requires only the president's approval. ... Joining ACTA by sole executive agreement would far exceed these precedents. The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which is charged with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.'"
This isn't just piracy anymore.
It's Big Brother. And it's all linked together, you're always locked to BB.
Screw it.
I believe the only hope in passing ACTA was to keep it secret. The cat's out of the bag with the leaked and commented document. Yes, I've read it and yes it's very scary. Much of it goes way beyond countering counterfeiting and piracy.
Now that the public has access to the leaked document, hopefully a lot of people will read it, make their own conclusions, and let their representatives know how they feel about it. That's the way to defeat this. At least here in the EU, our MEP's have said wait a minute, let's take a deeper look into this.
If ACTA passes as it is today, we are all going to be screwed. Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.
Ok, let's read Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution:
So, how is a trade agreement not a treaty?
This just goes to show that ACTA is really all about policy laundering.
http://outcampaign.org/
Appeals to the Constitution are not necessary. Modern political thought is wishy-washy on the Constitution--it's something to trot out as a convenience if it agrees with you, but also safely ignored if the Constitution runs contrary to your agenda. And, hell, whose to say you can't just reinterpret it through a postmodern perspective (as a "living document")?
The sheer amount of 5-4 decisions on the court should indicate that the court makes political decisions, and not merely informed, unbiased interpretations of law. The fears, wants, desires, and agendas of the judges affect constitution rules moreso than whatever the constitution itself says.
It is not being called a "treaty" because then the senate would have to vote on it, giving the American public a small window of opportunity to review it and decide whether or not we want it. Copyright lobbyists know that would be bad news for them, since they have not yet convinced the American public that their business interests are more important than our rights and freedoms (but they are working on that -- brainwashing schoolchildren and all), so they convinced their friends in the White House to sidestep democracy. Really, these people have no interest in freedom or democracy, unless it applies to them and their business; when it is inconvenient, they are quick to abandon it.
What is scary is that we have a president who stands with them on it.
Palm trees and 8
Do we need a new revolution?
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
How is a "police action" (a la Vietnam) not a war? Hairsplitting and semantic quibblings go far in the world of politics. After all, nobody is more powerful than the politicians and courts themselves to challenge them, and so long as they give themselves the appearance of expertise and authority political consensus can do whatever the hell it wants.
"Obama won the election and represents the will of the people. He can do what he wants. That's democracy."
No, that is not how American government works. The president is elected to oversee the implementation of bills passed by Congress, that is all -- presidents do not create laws, nor do they unilaterally decide that the US should sign a treaty. What Obama is doing is sidestepping America's democracy, so that Biden's friends in Hollywood can get what they want.
Palm trees and 8
Liberals are dancing in joy about a law that confiscates wealth from all citizens to give to the insurance companies as long as we call them evil as will fill their pockets. I suspect no complaints from them about this attack on the Constitution because it is 'their guy' doing the attacking.
The answer is certainly not moderates who a are pretty much happy to give up any right as long as you do it slowly.
Enjoy the scenery on the road to serfdom because when we get there, I think we will find that the collectivist paradise promised by the political elite will leave us wishing were we are the promised land of the "South of the Border" tourist trap. Hopefully we will at least get a nice bumper sticker out of the deal.
--- Liberty in our Lifetime
So what we're saying here is that this is above his paygrade... right?
We really do not know what is really discussed in the ACTA context. But the few things which leaked are not compatible with the German and the French constitution. It is against rules in the European human rights agreement and the Lisbon-Treaty (which made the EU a little bit more democratic). The European Parliament has expressed their concern that ACTA is not discussed in the public, which is not very democratic, but big companies especially US-companies can have treaty documents. So a elected parliament is kept in the dark while the money jerks are directly involved. In short the parliament is pissed. And they will dismiss it, just they did with the SWIFT-spying treaty between the EU and the USA. When do executive politicians learn that we life in a democracy?
If one were to take a time machine back to October 2008 and show them an article dated 2010 labeled "President claims power to implement agreement by executive fiat" or some such thing, you'd think that obviously McCain won, right?
Just more evidence that Obama = Bush.
If you're right, I'm really concerned and sadenned. Bush et al weren't proscuted for committing torture, perhaps simply because they refused to accept that choice of terminology. If the other two branches of government let the same, humiliatingly vapid technique keep them slapping down Obama regarind a treaty that he has no right to enact, then I just don't know what to say. I know that people in power (all three branches) get away with ignoring the Consitution, but it's starting to seem like the norm rather than the exception.
I know people often say, "If .... happens, I'm moving to Canada / Australia / Europe." Usually when I say it, I'm just joking. But if the U.S. adopts ACTA and Europe does not, I really might be getting close to the tipping point of seeking a visa for some European country. It just seems like there are more and more straws on the camels back, starting with around W's presidency.
Isn't it likely to get passed anyway since the US is really a plutocracy? I'm not sure the American public have as much say on it as you think; the public mouthpieces (i.e. the media) would make sure they argue the case for it to sway public opinion. Maybe there'll be one or two minor concessions, but I doubt it. And what do you mean "it is scary is that we have a president who stands with them on it"? Did you really expect Obama be different to any other US president that have all continually been pro-corporate? That's where their bread is buttered.
'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
Didn't we just pass legislation that for the first time forces private citizens to buy a product from a select set of other private citizens. The constitution is no longer relevant to the party in control of our government. They have deemed it something that can be reinterpreted to mean whatever they need it to mean at the time. All they need to do is redefine what words mean and suddenly the constitution means all sorts of things!
:end rant
Here's a few examples:
1895: Wage is now the same as income! Democrats begin their long march towards socialism! With the help of the Socialist Labor Party of the 1890's, they pass an amendment so they can now collect income tax from everyone! The sucking noise begins.
1935: Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT and the government is required to provide for the "happiness" of the people by collecting money from one group of people and giving it to another. Democrats, unhappy with the difficulty of getting constitutional amendments, so they decide to craft laws that skirt the letter of the constitution, arguing that social security/medicare is an retirement benefit to the people, while arguing to the SCOTUS that it is a tax. When the SCOTUS rules the initial law unconstitutional, democrat FDR runs personal smear campaigns against SCOTUS justices and has them replaced with justices that are willing to interpret the constitution the way he needs it. And thus begins the largest ponzi scheme in world history!.
begin rant:
The government then took from the ponzi err. social security fund as frequently as pleased to and for whatever reason it deemed important enough to do so. Which was of course any reason. Now, were this a REAL business, at this point the CFO would be thrown in jail, but this is the U.S. government! They buy the jails! Social security has been bankrupt for decades, the debt is around 17 trillion. But this week, for the first time, even on paper, the government is giving out more money in social security than it is taking in..
I ask you, if the government can force you to buy something from someone, is there anything there anything the government can't force you to buy? And if the government can arbitrarily come in and tell me what I must buy, what I can buy, and what I can't buy, can we truly say we live in a free society?
And for you fools in control. What makes you think the next generation is going to pay any attention to the laws you so haphazardly pass when you completely ignore the laws of the previous generations? That's anarchy!
I would be remiss to point out that Thomas Jefferson was like a fricking Nostradamus in predicting what would happen in this country. And how can I possibly follow the words of Jefferson with my pathetic waxing? So adieu!
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.
-Thomas Jefferson
Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question.
-Thomas Jefferson
Great innovations should not be forced on slender majorities.
-Thomas Jefferson
Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms [of government] those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
-Thomas Jefferson
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of the
> He [the president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
The key is not to have any Senators present, or just 1 who supports ACTA ;)
Just as bad (or possibly even worse) the "Democrats", who're supposed to be the "party of the people" are ignoring the clear will of the people in many cases. For instance shoving healthcare "reform" down our throats which around 60% of the citizens don't want.
I thought the point of a "republic" was that it isn't just a tyranny of the majority. Maybe, just maybe, Healthcare reform is something that needs to be implemented over the objections of a majority? Or would you like to argue that direct democracy is a better form of government? Or is it just that you're pissed that your will isn't followed by all around you?
0 is on a roll of ignoring the Constitution. It appears he views it as an outdated, inconvenient obstacle to be overcome.
You mean, he doesn't agree with your interpretation of the constitution. Or did you miss the parts of the constitution that were ignored in about, oh, a half-dozen major changes to the American Landscape in the last decade?
The arguments you're making are nothing but hot air and empty rhetoric, that can be applied to any situation. Unfortunately, that means that even if Obama would do exactly what you want him to do, the US would just continue down its current path - because you don't have a problem with the system, just merely with the direction the system is heading in.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Funny how someone who didn't needlessly start a war over lies and waste trillions outside the country can be "one of the worst".
Somewhere in the bottom 50, you mean?
Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?
Yes.
Will Obama sign it anyway?
Yes.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Why not? He's acting just like Bush in most of the areas the loudest complaints about Bush were made. Expansion of executive power beyond all reasonable bounds (remember Bush's assertion he needed no approval for wiretapping?) being one of them.
No, of course neither Clinton nor McCain would have done this differently. But with McCain, that's what McCain voters would have wanted. Obama campaigned on "change".
The US and the shit they spread - ACTA/DMCA, Iraqi/Afghan war, torture mentality, killer cops, etc is covering the whole world, where do you hope to go?
Would it be too much to ask for you to stay there and fix the problem? Excessive lobbyists could catch a little "civilian lobbying", politicians who don't do what they say (or break the law) could be hung...
Not only would it help the world, but you'd be able to stay home and it wouldn't suck. Clean up your yard.
The Constitution already requires legislative approval (specifically, a 2/3 vote by the Senate) on treaties -- it states that the President "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur."
"The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
I guess you forgot there was broad bipartisan support for both wars, and almost every country's intelligence agency thought Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.
I can't comment on the first part of this, because I wasn't really paying attention, but the second part is completely untrue. Two intelligence agencies thought Iraq had an active nuclear program. The UK disclosed all of their evidence before the invasion and it was far from conclusive - the strongest evidence in the document was that Iraq was importing magnets (which, clearly, have no non-nuclear uses...).
From talking to people involved with the decision a bit later, the British and US intelligence agencies disclosed everything that they knew to the other, but both assumed that the other side was holding something important back. Neither group had any evidence of a nuclear program, but both thought the other had and wasn't sharing it.
For everyone not part of the intelligence SNAFU, it was obvious that the invasion was ill-advised. That's why a million people marched on London to oppose it.
Apparently many have forgotten that UN inspectors actaully observed both chemical and biological agents in Iraq.
Yes, and the observed these programs being destroyed long before your invasion.
That is if 0 doesn't ban elections in the name of some convenient crisis or another. I'd put very little past him given his narcissism, arrogance and hatred for America.
Funny, I seem to remember exactly the same rhetoric about GWB.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Why is this a troll? This is exactly what Bush's supporters were saying about all of his actions. See also comments about his being the Commander In Chief and The Decider. It seems that people are now learning that if you award powers to a political office then it's hard to remove them when someone you don't like is in power.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
If ACTA passes as it is today, we are all going to be screwed. Keep up the pressure on your elected representatives.
Oh, and which party do you think is going to object to a stilted treaty that puts the desires of one of America's few export industries over the needs of petty citizens? Democrats and Republicans are overwhelmingly in favor of stronger copyright. No previous extension of the reach of copyright has faced major opposition.
Here's what will happen. You'll get the bill before Congress. Someone will motion for a voice vote. With their hands washed clean, the bill will pass without any record to let us hold the people who voted for it responsible. No muss, no fuss, and the only people who lose out are us little people.
That's how the Sonny Bono Act was passed. That's how the DMCA was passed. That's how this monstrosity will pass if it ever gets before Congress.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
A few people seem to have forgotten how Democracy works in this country, as is lined out by our constitution:
First we have the Soap Box (The right to peaceably assemble, freedom of speech, etc.)
Then we have the Mail Box (The protection of out letters, as well as the ability to write to our representatives in the government and tell them our views.)
Then we have the Ballot Box (The electoral college, voting in senators and representatives that agree with your ideals, etc, in case the previous representatives did not work to your needs.)
Then we have the Jury Box, (Where we can vote that a law or enforcement of a law is unjust. You do not have to vote guilty if a law is broken, you can vote towards nullification... True the courts are trying to ignore this right whenever possible, but we still have it. If you have jury duty, and think cannabis should be legal, and you are sitting in a trial for a non-violent offense of a guy growing pot for his friends and not receiving cash -as example, easier to convince the rest of them with this one- then remind the rest of the jurors that here and now you can work to end the prosecution of cannabis, and work to end the laws.... If you vote together, then he goes free despite being guilty of that law. There will be appeals, and the law will be reinforced by a jury of judges, but if that happens "every" time, the law will eventually be removed.)
And then we have our right of last resort: The Ammo Box.... (The second amendment is not your right to go deer hunting with a rocket launcher, it is your right to not only bear arms, but to be trained in militias to use them. Until recently, many people would keep weapons from the war in their garage, thinking nothing else of them.... Someone on the block maintained his cannon from the war in his garage, just in case he was called again. But the second amendment as viewed by the author of it, George Mason, was to protect us from the threat of an overreaching government that no longer listens, or works for, the People. -"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Now, if you really want to be patriotic, gather every able bodied friend you have, and organize a militia. Train together, express your desire to protect your town if those damn Canadians invade, or the British come back.... Or anything really. And, worst case, should America turn against Americans, you now have the last line of defense to bring the power back to the people. But at that point, its not about letters anymore. Its about being willing to die for your fellow American. Because there are good chances you will. You will die for your beliefs, and kill other Americans, the soldiers and such, before you fall. You better have noble reasons in your heart, and know that true, because your group will either be a rallying point for all others, or you will be wiped out, vilified by all, and forgotten.
Then we have the Dirt Box (Re-hash of the Freedom of speech and press. The government does not have the right to hush out and kill an idea, and it gets harder all the time. Did we use these boxes in full in our lives? Will our actions and causes be remembered? Did we print and write and spread our thoughts like seeds into the wind, or was the most we did in life amount to a few +5 posts on Slashdot? Or did we manage to stop the corporatocracy, and bring back the Democratic Republic that we hold dear? Did we put a few extra term limits on each level of government, so that we will not just become a plutocracy in most things again? Where rick lawyers can no longer "retire" into a lifetime of politics- preserving the institutions that make lawyers rich in the first place? If you want to have a better system of health care, stop electing politicians that are former malpractice lawyers.... Lawyers will always make sure lawyers are needed in the future. If you don't like ambulance chasers, don't think he will do better running you local governmental institution.....
And thats our government in a nutshell. If you don't like something, write down what you want to happen, start collecting signatures; even if it means missing the new episode of House you want to watch.
3 degrees of separation from Vladimir Putin
It is unconstitutional to vote on changes to a bill and deem that vote as the bill in entirety having passed, and then sign that into law, and yet it happened this week. Where house leaders and the President have stated many times they don't care about rules and process, but about getting things done, don't expect ACTA to have to require 2/3 senatorial approval. Under the current admnistration, executive order will be deemed sufficient, Constitution be damned.
Besides, how much has the Constitution mattered under any of the current and previous three administrations anyhow?
We have the power to change things: stop reelecting the same douchebags into congress, and stop electing presidents based on looks or skin color.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
The Constitution is not the effective law of the land in the US anymore. Our leaders have stated that they have what Ms. Pelosi calls "essentially unlimited" power, and they express shock when asked what constitutional authority they have for their actions. They do not believe themselves bound in any important way by the Constitution. Maybe they think they can't outright kill citizens, but they do think they can take anything they want anytime they want. The government's actions make more sense if you read them that way.
The question is whether the Supreme Court is still willing to strike down blatantly illegal acts, or whether it's now owned by the "living Constitution" crowd that thinks the document is meaningless. (Based on recent case law, they're split about 4.5-4.5 on that point.) We're going to see that by 2014 or sooner because of the illegal, unprecedented federal health care mandate.
Revive the Constitution.
You Americans have the beginnings of civil war on your hands... I'm not kidding: the raping and pillaging of your nation is beginning to bite even ordinary people in the ass. When that happens all it will take is for some kook to fire a potshot at Ferdinand and watch it snowball from there. This'll be interesting, first time of a civil war with a nation that has nuclear weapons. Perhaps your military should just sequester them?
Shh.
Sure, when the decisions are actually good that's fine. On the other hand, when the decisions are as wrongheaded as many the current Congress and President favor, it's not so good. :-P
Define good. There are a lot of things you will probably think good, that I would think to be terrible mistakes, and, obviously, visa versa. This is well and fine, and there is room for both. When someone claims that there is only room for their version of "good" then I worry.
Good often follows subjective political ideologies.
You should meditate on your tagline for a while... LOL
I have. Country doesn't mean people who subscribe to the same line as I do. Country doesn't mean only people who agree with me. Country does not mean only the rich, or only the poor. Country does not mean only bankers, or overseers of the military-industrial complex. Country does not mean tea party folk or progressives. Nor republican or democrat. It does not mean socialist or sociopathic free marketeer. Country means ALL of these, and the land, and the people, and the various cultures contained therein, and all of the resulting conflicts.
This is as much my country, and its destiny is as much mine, as it is yours.
Country far transcends whether or whether not you want government controlled health care.
Anything done to restrain 0's out of control spending is "good for America". His fiscal policies are literally insane.
And who isn't? And no, throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or biting off your nose to spite your face, is NOT good for America. The right wing of Congress sitting around with their fingers in their ears screaming "nyah nyah nyah can't hear you!" is not healthy for anything.
Perhaps the people on the Right could promote cutting some of the biggest bloat in the budget, military spending, or subsidies for agriculture and fossil fuels. Perhaps they would find that competitive tariffs would raise money and bring jobs... Perhaps they would realize that our two wars are really nothing but big bonfires for throwing money at. The republicans could do something USEFUL. Not doing anything isn't useful.
Oh, pork is only pork when it isn't our pork.
Your expectations vary quite a bit from mine. ;-)
When was the last time a president (or congress critter) didn't go back on all their promises, or generally screw the American people for a handful of rich and powerful interests? Not in the last eight years, not in the last sixteen, not in the last... oh hell, Jimmy Carter? Ineffectual but at least he was the last uncorrupted president. Before him? FDR? Maybe Eisenhower.
Obama is a joke, but so was the contenders. Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich (though I would have voted for Paul is I was a registered Republican, both actually believed in something).
It's sure not. "Reasoned debate" is about identifying good or bad ideas, and then calling a spade a spade, so to speak.
Good to whom, and bad for whom? I personally think that socialized health care would be really good for America. You don't. We could quibble all day over it, in fact, we as a people have been quibbling over it nonstop for years with no actual resolution in sight.
I think that redirecting 50% of miliary spending to social services and education would be the one of the greatest moves made in recent history. You might absolutely hate the idea. I think that corporations should be regulated to shit to keep them from harming real people (their only roll should be the total benefit of society, not just a handful of people at the detriment of society). I think we should abandon oil and coal as quick as possible. I think... etc... You get the idea, and you probably completely disagree with me on several, if not all, of these issues.
Who gets to say which is good or bad? These issues are not like those of math, logic, or physics where we can quickly disprove one through controlled experiment or
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
Which doesn't recognize that the choices are not "equally good". This seems to be the concept with which you have trouble.
Don't have trouble with it, I just accept ambiguity and accept the fact that there is always a very strong probability that I (or any other person) might be wrong, no matter how convinced I am otherwise.
There is a difference between the ability to assign truth value to the statements; "Obama's healthcare plan is bad" and "the moon is made of cheese". On is a subjective value judgment whose truth depends on the speaker, and the second is empirical and can be independently evaluated and proven or disproven.
No. You're forgetting that there is objective reality. For instance, millions of people starving to death or losing their homes is "bad". The opposite is "good"
I agree with your statement, obviously, but it isn't that simple. There is no way to objectively prove that one is bad and the other is good. We can reduce these judgement down to first principles, but all of these principles are wholly subjective, in cases of bad and good. We, and most of the western world, share a lot of principles, and thus most people we talk to would agree with us that one case (starvation of millions) is bad, while the other (nonstarvation) is good, this still does not make it an objective statement. It is nothing but a sociologically informed moral judgement.
There have been people who have argued that mass starvation can be good, and who have managed to find millions of supporters who agree with them (Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and a whole slew of leaders from history).
I am not arguing relativism here. Most people would agree that enforcing mass starvation is a bad thing, and the first principles derived from the formulation are much stronger than others.
But when it comes to things like socialized health care, this gets shaky. You can cite x to the contrary, and I can point at Finland. Etc... There is no end to this debate. I can't disprove your position, nor you mine. This is where the line is, the solution is something that makes all of us slightly happy, but doesn't make a large portion of any camp unhappy. If you got your way, you would be imposing your view on a large portion of society, just like your complaining that the "other side" did to you.
For instance, if healthcare is in fact nationalized, it will drastically reduce the quality of healthcare in America.
But I can point to many countries where it hasn't. Actually I can point to more countries with better healthcare than us with a socialized aspect, than I can to ones with without.
See this chart from National Geographic for example.
Nice job missing the point. I was referring to the 'defend his country against his government' part. The (Federal) government is the issue, and the biggest danger to a sane existence.
Yes and no. Would you rather live in a place like Somalia where there is no government or regulations? Government exist to serve the people. It can reach into excess, but it also can be a great force of good. Often it is both. The roll of the vigilant patriot is to maximize the good aspects while minimalistic the bad.
I view state governments, and local governments as an equal threat to the federal government. The smaller the government, the more likely it is that crazed minorities will be over-represented. I don't agree with Reagan, obviously, some government is a good thing, no government is a very bad thing.
Government should provide benefit to the governed. We disagree on the scope.
To me the government disenfranchising the poor is as big of a plight as any other. Or letting corporation do what they want to harm others for profit. The government turning a blind eye on the suffering of its citizens is something that we should fight against.
You should pay more attention, that's not what they're doing. It's just that 0
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey