Scholars Say ACTA Needs Senate Approval 204
suraj.sun passes along this excerpt from Wired:
"More than 70 academics, mostly legal scholars, are urging President Barack Obama to open a proposed international intellectual-property agreement to public review before signing it. The likely route for that is bringing the [Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement] to the Senate for ratification. ... the intellectual property accord, which Obama could sign by year's end, has pretty much been hammered out in secret between the European Union, Japan, the United States and a few other international players, including Canada and Australia. Noticeably absent is China. That said, these academics suggested that Obama does not have the authority to unilaterally sign the accord, which has been in the works for three years and is nearly final. Instead, they said, it should be considered a treaty, necessitating two-thirds Senate approval."
Scholars, you say? (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright Law (Score:2, Insightful)
I wouldn't put much hope in the senate. Copyright is a subject on which democrats and republicans are equally assholes.
Wait for the Supreme Court Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless the Republicans take control of the Senate in a few days, the Senate is unlikely to question the President's authority. He can call it an Executive Agreement, or whatever he wants; a Senate controlled by his political party will most likely let him do what he likes. Then these law professors and whoever can file a law suit of some sort, it can wend its way through the court system for several years until the current players are out of office, and eventually 5-10 years (or more) from now the Supreme Court can decide if ACTA is really a Treaty that requires Senate approval or not.
We are not a nation of laws, but a nation of political parties. Whichever party is in charge will pass whatever laws they want regardless of Constitutionality.
Cynical? Just a bit.
- Jasen.
Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score:3, Insightful)
The central position in government is trying to pull more power into it's office ?
Stop the presses !
Besides, Americans are really lucky. In European countries (all EU member states), international treaties only have to be ratified by the minister of foreign affairs, and take precedence over the constitution of the signatory countries. Obama's simply trying to destroy the sovereignty of America the way Barosso succeeded in doing to the European countries.
Barosso destroyed the sovereignty of these countries, with much accomplishes from those countries, simply to amass more power into a centralized point. This is simply what governments do.
And don't worry : "It's for your own good" (says the "ex-"communist "ex-"maoist Barosso, owner of more than ten times more luxury cars than I have pairs of footwear). I'm sure Obama (insert whatever reason you don't like him) will behave a *lot* better, right ?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not authorized.. like so often.. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't like the current arrangement of power between the federal and state governments, I happen to be a recruiter for the Army of the Confederate States of America. Just sign your name on the line, and you too can join the proud ranks of men who have a 6th grade social studies comprehension of what the Constitution means and want to fight a war that ended 135 years ago! You will receive a minimum of two copies of the Confederate flag (please display them prominently and publicly) and one hat, emblazoned with the same flag (wear at all times). Please note that joining our ranks will require that you hate minorities, anybody who lives north of the Mason-Dixon line, and change.
Recommended reading: The original Articles of Confederation, which failed primarily due to the lack of a strong national government, and any Con Law textbook, which will give an actual nuanced view of the 10th Amendment (and, of course, all of the rest of the Constitution), instead of "grr, federal government baaaad".
(And yes, before anybody starts up, the Civil War was about friggin' slavery. The fact that the Southern economy was based on slavery means it was STILL ABOUT SLAVERY. When 4 out of the 11 states specifically reference slavery in their declarations of independence, and the CSA VP calls slavery a "cornerstone" of the new government, it's about slavery. It wasn't the only reason, but it was the primary one. ...god, I want to move North.)
Re:Wait for the Supreme Court Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if Republicans take control of the Senate, it won't matter for ACTA. Intellectual property policy is one of the few truly bipartisan issues in Washington. ACTA is just not that big of a political issue for Republicans to want to halt for the purpose of obstructing Obama, and Republicans would have their own reasons for supporting it. There are only a couple of people who have been critical of ACTA in the Senate... Bernie Sanders, Sherrod Brown. Aside from that, not many other people are paying attention to it.
Another indication it's bipartisan - remember, ACTA talks were started under the Bush administration. Then they continued, pretty much without a hitch, under the new Obama administration. Honestly that's pretty impressive, there aren't too many issues where you get that kind of continuity with a party change.
Re:Bad move (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bad move (Score:1, Insightful)
And here [bit.ly]
Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score:5, Insightful)
The same way the president can issue edicts that are not laws, they're "Executive Orders." Or the Guantanamo prisoners are not prisoners of war, they're "Enemy Combatants." Or security for the G8 summit is not suppressing dissent, it's "designating Free Speech Zones." Sometimes the law or the Constitution is inconvenient to the President, so he makes up a new label for something he's not allowed to do, and decrees that the law or Constitution doesn't apply because of that label.
This is not a Democrat/Republican thing: George W. Bush and Obama are pretty different from one another yet they have both used these shenanigans routinely. It's a "power corrupts" thing. (Or perhaps a "Congress is asleep at the wheel" thing, or a "why haven't the people stormed the White House with torches and pitchforks?" thing.)
Re:Can we think rationally here? (Score:3, Insightful)
A fancy form of direct democracy might not be perfect, but could it be any worse than this sort of plutocratic authoritarianism we live under now?
As soon as you figure out a way to keep the nearby city with a population of 1,000,000+ deciding that my area with a population of 2,000 isn't going to be their new landfill site, I'll be right there with you.
Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score:4, Insightful)
An Executive agreement tends to sit just slightly above federal laws, but they cannot contradict any treaties or the Constitution itself. What's the practical effect of this? Not much - but it is easier to strike them down in a court, I suppose.
So an Executive Agreement has higher supremacy than a law, despite the fact that the legislature has no say in it?
Just pointing out the gaping hole in the system.
Re:Wait for the Supreme Court Case (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, you're missing the cases in which both parties get together to screw the little people over, such as the USA Patriot Act (the major reason I seriously hope Russ Feingold keeps his seat).
Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score:3, Insightful)
No - executive agreements are limited in that they can only agree to things which the executive already has the power to enforce (ie things that are already laws). In this case, ACTA basically amounted to exporting the DMCA to other countries, thus administration took the point of view that no changes to the law were needed to enforce this agreement; thus it did not need to be treated as a treaty or need any congressional ratification.
These law scholars are arguing that the current draft does have sections that differ from our current laws and thus new legislation needs to be passed to uphold the treaty.
Personally, I think the idea of executive agreements are still a bad idea, as it is much harder to change the law after it has been enshrined in a treaty (by any name), so congress should have some say in whether the existing law is cemented like that.
Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score:3, Insightful)
...have to be ratified by the Senate.
Well, then it's a good thing the we don't have a bunch of Senators that are willing to do whatever the .*AA tell them to. Oh yeah -- damn, we're still screwed.
Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score:5, Insightful)
That can't be, he ran on a platform of openness and transparency.
And this has been ongoing for over 3 years, which means Mr Obama didn't even originate it.
What's that got to do with it? He's going to implement it, and bypass Congress to do it if he can get away with it. He is not required to complete something this stupid. He's going to implement it because increasing government power, with the necessarily required reduction in personal freedom that a more powerful government is predicated upon, is his goal. The sum of everything he's done since he's been in office is: more power to government, less freedom for the individual.
Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score:3, Insightful)
One thing about an executive order is that it is an "order" from the President to an employee of the U.S. government telling them how they are supposed to do their job. A simply and ordinary law passed by Congress can override this order, so it is subordinate to legislation passed by Congress.
Since the U.S. government is so huge and expansive, and the authority of even individual agents and employees so expansive, an executive order can have the effect and impact often that a law has, including the interpretation of deliberately left vague sections of various laws that have been enacted.
These "executive agreements" pretty much are done along similar lines, but unfortunately the courts are increasingly interpreting them as a form of treaties when in fact they aren't. That is a significant problem.
Where I have a problem with the ACTA is that it has been negotiated in secret. To me, treaties and for that matter any sort of government business should never be done in secret with the possible exception of military planning.and matters of a personal nature. I don't expect to know each time an elected official takes a dump, to give an example. But if they are making some key decisions and making major policy documents, those should be open to the public and be debated and discussed by the citizens as well. Copyright as an issue in particular serves nothing to keep hidden and by definition shouldn't be something classified as a national security secret.
Re:We need scholars to tell us that? (Score:4, Insightful)
The sum of everything he's done since he's been in office is: more power to government, less freedom for the individual.
Name the last president who didn't live by that motto. Depending on your political leanings, I'd guess the most recent ones you could argue that about would be Carter or Eisenhower, but I'd put my money on either the forgettable presidents in Laissez Faire or George Washington (who in his insight, indicated in his fairwell address, that a party system would be the downfall of the country, and it may have taken a while to manifest, but it seems to be the case now).