Slashdot Mirror
Slovenian Ambassador Regrets Signing ACTA Agreement
metacell writes "Slovenia's ambassador to Japan, Helena Drnovek Zorko, writes: 'I signed ACTA out of civic carelessness, because I did not pay enough attention. Quite simply, I did not clearly connect the agreement I had been instructed to sign with the agreement that, according to my own civic conviction, limits and withholds the freedom of engagement on the largest and most significant network in human history, and thus limits particularly the future of our children.'"
Seems our politicians are too lazy to read anything these days.
Wasn't it Pelosi, who said something to the effect with regards to Obamacare..."Let's pass it so we can see what it says..."?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Because you would be considered an idiot for claiming this was unconstitutional. The executive branch can, and does sign international treaties. It is well within their authority to do so. There are three types of treaties in the U.S.
Congressional-Executive Agreements
Solo Executive Agreements
Treaties
If the president has signed one without the direct consent of congress, it is considered either a Solo Executive Agreement, or a Congressional Executive agreement. The U.S. also differs from most other nations in that they treat each of the above types of treaties as distinct classes and the treaty is incorporated into federal law, and as such, congress can go in and modify them after the fact, even though other signing nations would consider this a violation of the treaty in question. The Supreme Court can also hold a treaty as unconstitutional and null and void.
The authority of the president to do this is well known. Congress has attempted over the years to limit this authority with various versions of the Bicker Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bricker_Amendment#Legal_background) but it has never been ratified by enough states.