Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Senator Wyden Raises Constitutional Questions About ACTA
bs0d3 writes "In a written letter which can be found here, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden questions President Obama's authority
to sign ACTA without Congressional approval. 'It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law,' Wyden writes. 'But regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law ... the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress' authority, absent congressional approval.'"
Trade agreements are a form of treaty, and treaties have to be voted on by the Senate. The Constitution does this for a good reason, preventing the President from unilaterally committing the United States to international agreements. Wyden is right on this. And ACTA is clearly a trade agreement. Send this to the Senate first for a vote.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The Constitution? Pfft.
We've moved past that a long time ago.
Asset forfeiture, warrantless search and seizure, restrictions on the freedom of the press on the internet...
In other words, if he signs but it doesn't get ratified, nothing really changes because currently the treaty is fulfilled anyway, and a later change is not blocked by the contract because it was not ratified. On the other hand, if this contract gets ratified, then later the law cannot be changed any more, except by changing the treaty (which is much harder, because everyone who signed and ratified it has to agree).
Given that this is ACTA, which scenario would you prefer?
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
I don't think Obama has reached GWB's level yet unless you include allowing everything GWB did to persist.
To be clear, I do blame Obama for not undoing GWB/Cheney's dirty work. He pretty much promised he would do that. He hasn't and it seems he will not. But to be as bold as GWB in doing so? I am not so sure Obama even approaches that level of gall.
It will be a very long time before we see another black president. It didn't help anything and let's be frank about this -- he was elected BECAUSE he is black... and yeah because he speaks well. (He's a damned good speaker, let's not forget that... when I hear him speak, I want to listen.)
The public in general, learned some important things because of Microsoft. We learned that "the latest whatever" isn't always the best way to go. People stopped upgrading with the newer versions of Windows and Office. They didn't like them. The people have been adjusting to the fact that the same is true of presidents and other things as well. (And economic times are definitely showing us what we "need" versus what we "want" isn't it?)
I am hopeful that people are actually mindful of what they want out of government and do not stop at simply voting someone into office. The occupy movement is evidence that people are waking up to the fact that they have to be heard by government and that they must STAND UP and SPEAK to be heard. (Complaining with your neighbor on the other side of your cubicle isn't going to cut it.)
First, the link to the letter in the article tries to get you to sign up for some file storage service before reading the document. Here's the original from Sen. Wyden's U.S, Senate site.
The reason this isn't being submitted to the Senate for ratification as a treaty is because of a conflict between the pharmaceutical industry and the Department of Defense. The pharmaceutical industry insists that national governments not be allowed to override intellectual property laws to make low-cost drugs available to their citizens. That's in ACTA. DoD insists that they be allowed to override intellectual property laws when they want to use a technology without paying for patent rights first.
If ACTA were ratified by the Senate, it would be binding on the U.S. Goverment. This would give patent holders rights against the U.S. Government they dont' have now. DoD doesn't want that.
Yeah, except you didn't have to listen to anything Jobs said. Obama says you have to buy insurance, better buy insurance or you get fined. But I do see you underlying point, the difference being between a toddler whining "Give me cookies" and a 6'10" thug with a gun saying "Give me your money."
(oh, can't wait to feel the heat on this one)
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
You don't have to buy his products.
Also, Jobs was actually right at times.
The one thing Congress can still do is starve the Executive of money.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Every time I see Ron Wyden associated with something he's the one asking intelligent questions or proposing reasonable legislation. It's gotten to the point where I have to watch myself to make sure I don't agree with him reflexively.
I'm incredibly impressed with him, and I sure wish *he* would run for president. I'm nauseated at the prospect of choosing between Romney and Obama next year.
Sometimes I even want to do this with pictures of Ron. Secret Love Lair
This is one of my big disappointments with him. I was hoping we'd reach such a landmark with a strong, effective president. Instead, well, look at what we got, the weak community-organizer-in-chief. Looking back, if only Ryan's private divorce matters hadn't been aired, allowing Obama to run effectively unopposed for the Senate, Herman Cain could have been the first.
Same with a female president. I would love to have one, but I hope it's not Hillary, or Bachmann or Palin for that matter. I don't see any others on the horizon either.
To be clear, I do blame Obama for not undoing GWB/Cheney's dirty work. He pretty much promised he would do that.
Really? I remember him promising to focus more on Afghanistan, and close Guantanamo. He did one, and was out manouvered by republicans on the other. These are the only Bush era items I remember him promising to undo, and neither of them affect our essential rights.
I also remember him supporting the "Patriot" act, and supporting warrantless wiretapping, well before the election. It's always been clear to anyone who paid attention that he was just like Bush.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Between two really unattractive options, backing DoD or pharmaceuticals, I think we picked the wrong side of that one. Pharmaceutical companies are just about the most corrupt, manipulative organizations around. And I'm not saying that because of some CNN sound bite, I've read some good books by business ethics and public health experts on the topic. This one was not only argumentative but surprisingly scholarly and accessible; great stuff. Profits Before People
The people in sales and marketing of prescription drugs are seriously the scum of the Earth. They manipulate prices, patents, medical education, public opinion, public policy, and a thousand other things. What makes them especially annoying to me is their constant press statements and ad campaigns about how they're so generous, so sensitive, and how they're practically non-profit in the long run. At least banks and arms dealers occasionally admit it's all about the money.
No, he's not. He's a pawn for his corporatist handlers, just like Bush was.
Sure you're not confusing that story with this?
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/kkk.asp
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Been a long time since 99% of politicians cared about it, not like they are going to start caring now.
Are you really saying that the black son of a single white mother breezed through law school with his numerous Harvard connections? Really?
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
At the expense of mutually assured destruction, no doubt. Remember the debt ceiling debate a few months ago? Remember when new debt couldn't be issued to fund spending in excess of tax revenue, so the Treasury Dept. started looting government pension funds? Good times...
He once inserted random mutations into his code, just so he could have the experience of debugging.
Completely off-topic, but...
Hey, the party affiliation of Wyden isn't mentioned in the article! Where are all of the typical whines about the lib'rul media neglecting to mention that the dude(s) mentioned in the article are (D)s? Oh, is it because he's doing something that's good?
This story is a perfect case to illustrate the confirmation bias of butt-hurt whiners and their persecution complexes.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
It's about the cushy position given to him for 12 years at University of Chicago Law School as a lecturer for constitutional law. His colleagues at the school didn't find him to be particularly engaged, as he had other priorities at the time, namely his political career.
His connections were gained while doing community organizing work in Chicago. I have to admit, he is extremely smooth. He'd do anything, pretend to believe anything, live a complete lie, just to get ahead.
Sorry, but anyone referring to Obama as the "Messiah" or the "One" or the "Chosen" or whatever deserves to be modded to oblivion because it's flamebait. Essentially you're insulting both Obama *and* insinuating that his supporters are fanatical, irrational worshippers, without having the balls to come out and say it. It's a nice little straw man for you to attack without putting any effort or thought into it.
I'll admit that I didn't even read the rest of your OP, because I figured it would be more of the same.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
No, it was the Republican minority that somehow maneuvered the health care bill into a situation where the individual mandate was the *only* way to pay for it. I'm not sure how else they expected it to work when they took the single payer option off the table.
I'd claim that it was just an unintended consequence, except I'm pretty sure this was *exactly* what was intended. They get to force the issue, then blame Obama for what they did. Brilliant, really, especially considering how many dupes will happily swallow the lie whole as long as it fits with their "Obama and the Democrats are big spenders!" mantra.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
You will see Cain in 2012.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Nope.
"The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old......They literally know nothing." - Ben Rhodes
"They" didn't sign the bill into law, though. Obama did. He did precisely what they wanted him to do. He willingly and eagerly participated in their plan. He deserves as much blame as they do.
.. to the resurgence of pettiness as the primary means of political discourse ....
+7 incisive
=~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
That's not very likely to happen whether we replace him with a Republican or a Democrat.
This link explains the difference: Treaties and Executive Agreements.
Since George Washington, presidents have been entering the US into international agreements that were not approved by the Senate, i.e., agreements pursuant to the constitutional authority of the president.
The constitutional sources of authority for the President to conclude international agreements include:
(a) The President’s authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;
(b) The President’s authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers;
(c) The President’s authority as “Commander-in-Chief”; and
(d) The President’s authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
So the Obama Admin will obviously claim this falls under his constitutional authority based on existing law. It will be interesting to see if SCOTUS takes the case, assuming one arises.
Please don't argue with the messenger here, I'm just presenting the law and the facts, not issuing a conclusion on ACTA's legality.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
AH, did you forget about the 2 previous elections?
You know where republicans attack vote counting setter, destroys ballots, and called any one names who dared question what happened?
I am not fanatical, or an irrational worshiper. I use logic and history. I suggest you begin to do the same.
Do you know what cause the enthusiasm for Obama? the complete and utter fuck ups the republicans did. People seem to forget that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
What we are seeing is the result of the primary republican goal. People like the poster have been spoon fed the same lies and they bought it.
The republican have castrated every attempt Obama makes. Even when he agrees with them, the change their stance. The pub ONLY GOAL is making Obama a one term president. SO they shut everything down a best they can, and then certain media outlets and pundits talk about how it's on only Obama fault, but the whole economy and jobs issue was Obama's fault.
And people like that poster buy it.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You will see Cain in 2012.
Then there will be Hell to pay.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I hope not. His campaign is built upon a logical fallacy: The Running a business is the same as running a country.
It isn't. There are two separate species. One case about customer, and is responsible to a few people who hold stock.
The other has a responsibility to all people, regardless of their income or voice.
"And as a successful business leader and CEO, my executive experience in turning around struggling companies is just what this country needs."
No, it is not. Business are dictatorships.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because it is the type of politics that effects how you can use technology.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
He's kept around half of his campaign promises...if you're generous about what you mean by keeping a promise. And it's largely the wrong half.
You can argue that he was stopped by the Republicans, but if he were serious he could have used his "bully pulpit" to push for what he wanted. He didn't. Largely because what he wanted were things he'd prefer that the public not notice.
You could say that he was guided by public opinion poles...but this is clearly only true when they say what he wants to hear.
The best you can say about him is that Bush was worse, and Palin probably would have been. I don't think that Nixon was worse...and I thought Nixon should have been crucified in a public square for betrayal of the constitution.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Due to him being black, he was the one best able to get across the message of "I'm not Bush." And then he proceded to be pretty much like Bush in various areas, only even more incompetent.
You mean how Gore tried to steal the election through the classic "Recount until the Democrat wins" strategy, but was rebuffed by the Supreme Court? You mean how the efforts of the networks to stop votes in heavily Republican Western Florida by declaring Gore the winner over votes in the East, where polls had closed, didn't work even though it cost Bush 7,500-15,000 votes? You mean how the Democrat effort to have military (mostly pro-Bush) ballots thrown out wasn't enough? How about ACORN's widespread voter registration fraud in 2004? How about the Black Panthers intimidating white voters in 2008? Obama even paid them back by having Holder basically drop what was a clear-cut, strong case against them.
Using logic and history, you'd know both parties equally use dirty tricks to try to steal elections.
A business executive is a leader. They understand organization, bureaucrats (yes, business have these types too) and delegation.
A community organizer understands none of this. They understand political connections, special favors, and pandering. And we've seen what those get us.
If running a business is nothing like running a country, then organizing a community is the opposite of running a country.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As a DoD contractor, I see that all the time. DoD employees are rightfully pissed when contractors develop tech on the government dime, then take the tech a half step further and start calling it proprietary. It's total BS. The DoD always wants the simple right to use the things they paid for without paying again. And in years past, DoD contracts departments have sometimes done a poor job and then been burned by buying something on a low initial bid, being sold a proprietary technology, and then being stuck with ridiculously overpriced maintenance costs and no way to cost-effectively hire someone else to do the work.
I've never seen the DoD just try to directly use a foreign patent for free, although it's not an issue of whether or not they want to--I think it's more functional roles. The DoD is primarily composed of enlisted guys who do the work and generalist officers who lead them. They employ pockets of specialists to keep the generalists out of trouble, and those few specialists usually end up responsible for technical management of programs and contracts so the officers don't need to do day to day management and can focus on strategic items. That way DoD officers don't have to learn how to manage highly technical staffs--which is a very different task from managing soldiers in the field, so this significatanly cuts DoD overhead--and the DoD doesn't have to figure out how to keep paying for a costly technical staff if congress reduces funding since they can just not extend contracts.
The DoD will still be crying for the new features and capabilities provided by new patents, but they generally don't care how it gets done, and consequently, the patent is an issue the contractor can figure out. The DoD just wants 'sharks with frikin lasers attached to their heads.'
And now they buy the documentation too so they can later get competitive bids on upgrading those lasers down the road.
I completely agree with you. Even about Nixon.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Perhaps because this will "lock in" the current IP laws?
Can a law be modified, created, or stricken that goes against a treaty?
--- Keep the choice with the user..
1) U.S. companies and legislators practically dictate ACTA to cushion the corporate interests of the entertainment industries. ... then it suddenly might not be acceptable to the people who (in practice) started the whole circus?
2) ACTA is presented as an "offer you cannot refuse" to the rest of the world.
3) Eventually, ACTA comes back to the U.S. as a treaty, ready to to be signed
4)
5) ???
6) Confusion!
We (or at least certain pieces inside the USG) want to sign this precisely so we can use it to browbeat other countries. We instigated it. We did the end-run around WIPO. We tried to keep it secret. It's our baby through and through.
Is there ANYONE with a realistic chance of getting elected who will undo all the unconstitutional measures put in place over the last decade or more?
Yes, but you will then be in violation of the treaty. If the treaty contains any provisions for punishing for treaty-violation, you may now be punished under the same treaty. If it doesn't.. Well, nothing happens.