Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional? 260
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.'"
I hope so. (Score:2, Insightful)
It's Big Brother. And it's all linked together, you're always locked to BB.
Screw it.
More proof (Score:4, Insightful)
The Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre (Score:5, Insightful)
What is scary is that we have a president who stands with them on it.
Change is Coming? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
To paraphrase the Obamanator himself... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Rule by proclaimation? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Do we need a new revolution?"
Things aren't difficult enough to drive revolt.
People don't revolt when there is no freedom (the odd exception of the American Revolution aside), they revolt when there is no feud.
Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The Constitution (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really. It just suggests that cases where the law is clear (and thus would have larger majorities) don't tend to make it to the Supreme Court.
Now you guys care about the constitution? (Score:1, Insightful)
Where were you when Congress passed a law that requires you to buy a consumer product (insurance) just to live in this country?
Land of the free my ass.
Re:It will be against many Constitutions (Score:5, Insightful)
When electorates stop voting in narcissistic psychopaths and megalomaniacs?
The Living Constitution (Score:4, Insightful)
Here's a few examples:
1895: Wage is now the same as income! Democrats begin their long march towards socialism! [wikipedia.org] 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 [wikipedia.org] 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! [wikipedia.org].
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. [nytimes.com].
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
Re:Uh, isn't that covered in the constitution alre (Score:3, Insightful)
> 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 ;)
Re:The people's will (Score:1, Insightful)
Eat a dick. No, seriously. I'm sure you were cheering when Shrub forced a trillion dollars of wars down our throats, wiretapped American citizens in direct violation of the FISA regulations, and illegally ordered prisoners of war to be tortured.
And your claim regarding HCR isn't even accurate, not that it would matter given how many lies the Rethugs have put out there. How can an elected body pass legislation with a majority of the votes and NOT represent the will of the people? THAT'S HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.
Re:The Living Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
I sure hope you were bitching this much when the Patriot Act was instituted, Guantanamo was opened and the President was handing out Executive Orders like they were candy.
Any document is a living document, because the use of language changes. It is absolutely impossible to interpret any document in the same exact that a completely different group of people interpreted it 200 years ago. Heck, we can't even agree on what documents exactly say that were written 2 weeks ago.
Re:I hope so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes.
But if I say something like "This is why I don't like Obama. He's just a continuation of Bush's anti-liberty/anti-individual rights policies," I'll get modded down.
Watch.
Re:Only hope has passed... (Score:2, Insightful)
I wrote all 535 (well almost - a few I couldn't locate). And before you say I shouldn't do that, I'm merely following the example of folks like Tim Geitner, Congressman Murtha, Charlie Rangel, Vern Buchanan and so on.
Apparently the American House/Senate now operates on the same principles as the Old Roman Senate. (For those that don't get the reference, replace Roman Senate with Star Wars' Senate.)
Re:The people's will (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Short answer ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Will ACTA Be Found Unconstitutional?
Yes.
Will Obama sign it anyway?
Yes.
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:5, Insightful)
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".
Individualism died (Score:0, Insightful)
The Civil War killed States rights (I agree completely that slavery needed to end, but the Civil War was not about slavery, read some history). Over the decades since, the federal government, through the IRS, SSA, Medicare, Medicaid, Land various subsidies and other Federal programs has quickly eroded the concept for individualism and personal responsibility. You have a right under the Constitution to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of happiness. Your right to liberty and pursuit of happiness is being seized from you by the federal government. You have no right to Prosperity, it must be earned. They are undermining your economy and telling you that you need to be saved by them. THEY CANNOT SAVE YOU. THEY ARE NOT MAGIC. YOU DO NOT NEED TO BE SAVED BY THEM.
Your future, your life, your dreams have always been your responsibility and your gift to the world. Through taxes, subsidies, and federal programs, they are trying to control what you eat, where you live, the kind of car you drive, whether your spouse has a job, who cares for your child, whether you use a tanning booth, how much you drive your car, ad nauseum. They have do not have the right to manipulate our lives this way. They are NOT qualified to manipulate our lives this way. We do NOT need them to manipulate our lives this way.
Change the tax laws, take away their money and power! There was no personal income tax prior to the civil war and the country was better for it. They do not need that kind of power over you, that are not authorized that kind of power, and it is literally killing our country.
Re:I hope so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Right. Cause no one with a right-wing bias ever got mod points. You contribute a lot to the discussions here, and should know better.
What I'd like to know from the "right" is where is the outcry over this? You and I may not agree on the value to the individual of universal health care, but why isn't the well-organized right wing anti-health-care-reform sect holding ACTA up as an example of Obama sacrificing personal liberty to appease a few corporations?
If Sarah Palin is really interested in preserving the personal liberties of the citizens of your country, and not just in getting herself on the ticket (or getting speaking engagements and selling books), she should show some leadership on *this* issue.
Re:The people's will (Score:3, Insightful)
So you think Congress will save us? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
American Democracy Prime: (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:The Living Constitution (Score:3, Insightful)
Democrats begin their long march towards socialism! [wikipedia.org]
You really don't know the definition of socialism, or how that term doesn't apply to Obama in the slightest, right? The healthcare bill was about as far from socialism as one can get. Its fascist, or purely corporatist, not socialist. If it was single payer and universal it would have been socialist, if it had the so-called "public option" it would have had socialist aspects. We got neither, therefore we did not get socialism. Obama is a very slightly left leaning centrist, in the grand scheme of things, who buys pretty much the Reagan trickle down line (which, IMO, is nothing but a post-hoc rationalization for corruption). Kuchinich is socialist, Feinstein is a socialist, Obama is not.
The actual left in America is pretty much non-existent, compared to the rest of the world. Obama would be a conservative in pretty much any other developed country, and our conservatives would be the lunatic fringe.
Now retirement and health care are a RIGHT [wikipedia.org] 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.
You realize that the Constitution points out that our Government, in part, exists to "promote the general welfare" of the people, right?
Further:
"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States...
Means that taxation for the good of the People is NOT a bad thing, or a sin, or whatnot. I would consider trying to make the people "happy" is a good thing, and very well within the line of "general welfare". Its either that or a government that tries to make people unhappy.
What does the constitution mean now anyhow? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:The people's will (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I hope so. (Score:3, Insightful)
"What I'd like to know from the "right" is where is the outcry over this? "
A: Few people know about ACTA, unless they are nerds, geeks, moderately serious pirates, or representatives of the industries with a stake in ACTA
B: Few people who HAVE heard of ACTA care one whit. They don't understand the potential, and don't care to explore the possibilities. Doing so would move them uncomfortably close to the line of becoming a nerd, geek, or pirate.
C: Few people who have a clue have the balls to speak up. It's a bit like protesting draconian laws against child pornography - it makes you suspect to do so. And, let's face it - almost no one who isn't pirating, or at least downloading "illegal" content does care about piracy law.
Re:The Living Constitution (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The people's will (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:The people's will (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [whatifpost.com] 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