Two Senators Call For ACTA Transparency 214
angry tapir writes "Two US senators have asked President Barack Obama's administration to allow the public to review and comment on a controversial international copyright treaty being negotiated largely in secret. The public has a right to know what's being negotiated in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA), Senators Sherrod Brown, an Ohio Democrat, and Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent, argue in the letter."
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Interesting)
I wrote to Senators Durbin, and Burris. They both responded in form letter that they are all for whatever is being negotiated to stop "piracy". Apparently either they didn't read or don't care that what is really happening (from what has been leaked) is the end of Fair Use, and First Sale. Along with DRM with no way out.
Nice to know both my Senators have our interest at heart.
Not!
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:5, Interesting)
and the supreme court can void them (Score:3, Interesting)
and the supreme court can void them
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:3, Interesting)
Also [citation needed] I'm pretty sure there is no such rule, simply that politicians tend to vote with their party line. I know that wayyy back in the day the Whip could dish out minor punishments if people didn't vote with party lines but that's about it. I don't think this is the case anymore, people just get punished if they skip too much and politics can't get done.
BTW, the whip does NOT actually whip anyone, though we can dream.
Re:The senators can sign a law that takes a way th (Score:2, Interesting)
It appears they can.
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/article-2/19-constitutional-limitations-on-treaty-power.html [justia.com]
Re:In secret?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law. Turns out the government can't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they won't necessarily stand up in court.
The fact that ACTA is likely to contain punitive measures without a proper hearing will get up most judges noses. I would think it's probably unconstitutional and may even be an act of treason attempting to put the interests and wishes of a corporation or group of corporations above Crown and law. Run the bastards through if they try.
Most judges don't like it when an elected government tries to go beyond their powers - especially when they remove due process and oversight by the judiciary.
Re:In secret?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, but if they do it in secret then ratify it, it won't really be law. Turns out the government can't enact domestic laws simply by signing treaties - or if they try they won't necessarily stand up in court.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering how the world is shifting to the right I'd say we arrived at center by now. Even our socialists now sound almost like our liberals.
Re:Most insightful department ever (Score:3, Interesting)
Just a reminder: both of these excellent senators are considered by the media to be on the extreme far-left.
Actually, they're considered by Congress itself to be on the extreme far-left.
Bernie Sanders is the Man (Score:4, Interesting)
Fast tracking is different from executive orders. (Score:3, Interesting)
Fast tracking is different from executive orders. Fast track (now called trade promotion authority) allows the president to negotiate a trade treaty in advance, then present the entire package to Congress in a take-it-or-leave-it fashion. This prevents trade negotiation from getting bogged down in Congress - without fast tracking, every senator is going to want a tariff on whatever their state happens to produce.
Fast track really isn't relevant to ACTA for two reasons. First, as I pointed out elsewhere, it's being negotiated as an executive agreement, so it doesn't require Congressional approval anyway. The flip side of this is that it is supposed to "color within the lines" (as a USTR rep put it) of existing US law, but without seeing the agreement, we just have to take the administration's word (along with that of other colorful characters, such as the MPAA and PhRMA) that this is true. Oh, and some of the few public interest group people who have gotten to see draft texts (under NDAs) have specifically said in their opinion, it would go beyond current US law.
Second, fast track authority expired a while ago (I believe in 2007), and Obama is unlikely to get it back anytime soon. Protectionist sentiment in the US is strong right now, and free trade is not high on Obama's agenda anyway (see, e.g., the tariff on Chinese tires).