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...
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.
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
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.
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
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
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
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.