US Government May Not Be Able To Fix Cell Phone Unlocking Problem 203
An anonymous reader writes "We recently discussed what appeared to be a positive response from the Obama administration on the legality of cell phone unlocking. Unfortunately, the Obama administration may not be able to do anything about it. It has already signed away our rights under a trade agreement with South Korea. Lawyer Jonathan Band, who works for the Association of Research Libraries, wrote, 'The White House position, however, may be inconsistent with the U.S. proposal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and existing obligations in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and other free trade agreements to which the United States is a party. This demonstrates the danger of including in international agreements rigid provisions that do not accommodate technological development.'You can read more about this issue in a short eight page legal primer by Jonathan Band (PDF). An interesting, related note that the U.S.-KOREA FTA is possibly inconsistent with our domestic patent/drug law in the Hatch-Waxman Act as well. The trade agreement requires us to grant injunctions until the patent is invalidated as opposed to thirty months under current domestic law."
IANAL (Score:3)
Re:IANAL (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"The TPP is being forced down many countries throats..."
BUT... the TPP is not "an agreement" yet, if it ever will be. It is only a proposal (one which the United States actually refused to follow itself, after a bunch of public outcry). So, since it is not yet an "agreement" or treaty, it does not actually block the unlocking of cell phones.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see the rise in very expensive coffee, where cell phones are unlocked while you wait, for free.
NO IANAL! (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress can fix this problem. Congress just doesn't want to fix this problem. See the difference?
So what happened? (Score:2)
The US Government has been out-lobbied by Korean lobbyists? Or is Samsung's plan much bigger than Apple thought?
Re:So what happened? (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened is the US government found a good excuse for saying one thing and doing another to make it appear like it was on your side without that actually being so.
Welcome to politics.
I do not see a problem (Score:5, Interesting)
KORUS does allow for administrative procedures like the DMCA's rule-making to adopt temporary exemptions, but not permanent ones. The challenge before Congress is to devise a permanent exception for cell phone unlocking that does not breach the obligations under KORUS and other similar free trade agreements
The US constitution allows temporary copyrights; Congress has managed to ignore the spirit of the constitution by extending copyright terms 20 years every 20 years. How about we just do the same with DMCA exemptions?
Re: (Score:3)
Or why not just make a temporary exemption that only lasts until unix time overflows 64 bits?
Re: (Score:2)
Or why not just make a temporary exemption that only lasts until unix time overflows 64 bits?
Because those DMCA servers don't run on Unix time you stupid! ;-)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Technically it is still temporary. You just disagree on how long is temporary. Sort of like those "temporary" portable buildings at schools and the "temporary" Bush tax cuts, you never know how temporary it actually will be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's the problem? Since with the next update of the phone the unlock is removed as well, it's just temporary anyway.
IP legislation is a monster (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that these days IP legislation tries to swallow everything. Nothing is safe from IP laws.
It's time to reverse that trend, most of the DMCA should be considered unconstitutional anyhow. If someone sold me a device, why can't I tear it apart to see how it was built?
Patents and copyrights exist for making sure no one needs to keep trade secrets. The intent of those laws is to let people learn about the technical details behind the technology.
Having laws that restricts the liberty of learning goes against every principle of a civilized society.
Re: (Score:2)
Patents and copyrights exist for making sure no one needs to keep trade secrets. The intent of those laws is to let people learn about the technical details behind the technology.
Not quite. Patents exist in part to encourage people to share the details behind their inventions, at least in theory. They grant a monopoly in exchange for that. People would share the details anyway where it's self-evident, so it's like we're giving a free monopoly--except you still encourage innovation by paying for development costs. The problem is the monopoly can be disproportionate to the investment and can retard progress and the development of knowledge. In any event, though patents are fundam
Re: (Score:2)
Who says we ever lived in one?
Re:IP legislation is a monster (Score:5, Interesting)
America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
-- Oscar Wilde
other countries have laws that phones must be unlo (Score:4, Interesting)
other countries have laws that phones must be unlocked or the carriers must give out the unlock code.
We need to end carrier only phones and phones with all the carrier software forced on you that you have to hack your own phone to remove it you should have the choice of how much of the software that you want. Visual voice mail (good), a app that let's you see how many mins / data / txt of your plan that you used and uses there meter (good) other apps not so much.
Re:other countries have laws that phones must be u (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:other countries have laws that phones must be u (Score:5, Insightful)
Because, fuck you, that's why.
Re:other countries have laws that phones must be u (Score:5, Interesting)
Carrier lock is simply a way for them to try to abduct more customers. I use abduct very purposefully here.
abduct [ab-duhkt] verb (used with object) 1. to carry off or lead away (a person) illegally and in secret or by force, especially to kidnap.
There is no technical or contractual reason to keep you locked. The OP is correct in that you sign a binding legal contract when entering a contract with a mobile carrier, but when that contract is up, they want you to stay, not run off to some n-contract or other carrier with the phone you purchased (albiet at a subsidy) from them. If their contract did not cover the subsidy discount on the phone, then they need to redo their math and stop devices that are now legally owned by others hostage.
In addition to this however, there is no incentive for handset makers to push to change it. If you cannot continue to use your phone on a carrier you like, what do you do? You purchase a new phone and the handset maker profits as well.
None of this fosters competition or aids the consumer. It is solely a self serving policy by those in (capitalistic) power.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the two-year contract is for -- to amortize the cost of the $600 phone over 2 years while still giving them (Verizon, et al) service profits.
Fair enough, if that's how the cost plays out so you don't have to pay for a laptop equivalent up front. But you are still buying it, so it should be yours at the end.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the two-year contract is for -- to amortize the cost of the $600 phone over 2 years while still giving them (Verizon, et al) service profits.
So why doesn't my mobile bill drop to half or less after the amortized phone is paid off?
Re: (Score:3)
For the same reason petrol isn't reduced in price at the pump the day crude prices drop but is increased the day crude prices go up: fuck you
Re: (Score:2)
That's what the two-year contract is for -- to amortize the cost of the $600 phone over 2 years while still giving them (Verizon, et al) service profits.
Fair enough, if that's how the cost plays out so you don't have to pay for a laptop equivalent up front. But you are still buying it, so it should be yours at the end.
You are almost there...
The carriers are not amortizing the phones. From a legal perspective, the ownership of the physical device is transferred at the start of the contract when the person pays the agreed upon price. Sales taxes on the phone are paid at the beginning, and any future payments are against the service being provided, not the phone itself.
Therefore, the phone is yours at the beginning, regardless of the terms of the service contract.
For the phone to be yours at the end, you would have to be
Re: (Score:2)
I really don't see why phones are locked in the first place. You're already tied to the carrier with a legal contract. There shouldn't need to be a technical measure in place to make sure you don't take the phone to a different carrier. If you try to leave before the contract is over, there's already high fees for breaking the contract. If you choose to not pay those fees, it would probably look bad on your credit rating. After your contract term ends, you should be free to do whatever you want with the phone. Actually, If they now have the system in place to block stolen phones, the major providers could probably place the phones from non-paid contracts on a list where they would refuse to allow the phone be used until the contract is paid in full.
It has nothing to do with the contract with you, it has to do with the contracts they have with the manufacturers. Locking is about tying the handset to the carrier, not you to the carrier.
Example: you could unlock the iPhone as soon as it showed up on other carriers. Even ATT would do it while you were still on contract, if you asked.
Phones that are still on exclusive contracts tend to be non-unlockable.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Sold out by corrupt politicians. (Score:5, Funny)
Who would have guessed?
Re: (Score:2)
I would not go has far as to say "corrupt" in this case. Ignorant of the unintended consequences of the law, perhaps. But I don't see this (yet) as a example of abject corruption. More time/data needed for the corrpution charge.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not just ignore people who break the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Why not just ignore people who break the law? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are already more laws than anybody could ever know about. We are already at the point where it is easy to be breaking multiple laws without knowing it. The police, even good police, like having this situation because it lets them arrest anyone they want at any time, if they can just figure out one of the many laws they are breaking, even if it is a stupid one. Of course they like this situation because it makes their jobs easier, and they think that their "gut feelings" are 100% correct 100% of the time.
Do you really want to live in that kind of world? Well, whatever your answer, you already do. But do you want to make it worse?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your naivete shows.
Silly traffic laws are enforced when it suits the police to enforce the laws. Haven't you watched "Law and Order" where laws are stretched to fit people ADA Jack McCoy wants to persecute? Police do this also and use the silliest of laws to facilitate their harassment.. Every regulatory entity does this. To think that they don't is quite pollyana-ish.
Re: (Score:3)
isn't that one of the basic rules of a police state ? everybody is always guilty. say something wrong, and you get prosecuted.
any incorrect or unfair law should be removed or fixed as soon as possible.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes. You would probably like the following book, Three Felonies a Day: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1363180505&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You can also visit their website for some interesting examples:
http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx [threefeloniesaday.com]
Re:Why not just ignore people who break the law? (Score:4, Informative)
Here is the link to the article or law that CastrTroy noted.
http://news.tripwheels.com/2013/02/11/international-driving-permit-required-for-florida/ [tripwheels.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Selective Enforcement (Score:4, Insightful)
Having "unenforced" laws on the books that everyone breaks is dangerous because it allows police to selectively enforce those laws when they need to punish a specific individual or group (cracking down on homeless people for loitering for example, or the overly broad "computer hacking" law which was used to go after Arron Swartz).
Re: (Score:3)
It's not that difficult (Score:5, Interesting)
Congress can pass the law; they have that power, and no mere treaty can take it away.
What happens, if Congress passes a law that is in conflict with the treaty is that the most recent of them is in effect in the US.
As for our international obligations, we have a few choices: We can withdraw from the treaty. We can seek to renegotiate the relevant part of the treaty. Or we can ignore the conflict. If we ignore it, there may be some enforcement mechanism intended to encourage us to do something, but depending on what it is, we may be able to ignore that too. After all, the US is in violation of the Berne Convention [wikipedia.org] and we've ignored that successfully for over a decade now.
Re: (Score:2)
Congress can pass the law; they have that power, and no mere treaty can take it away.
The problem is, if congress ratifies a treaty, it becomes the law of the land. You want them to pass a new law which conflicts with it? No, they'd either ignore or renegotiate the treaty. More likely though, they will simply observe it. They don't REALLY want to give us unlocking.
Re:It's not that difficult (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, under U.S. law, the KORUS free trade agreement is not actually a treaty. It is instead a "congressional-executive agreement". That is, rather than being signed by the President and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate it was passed by simple majorities of both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Which means that under U.S. law it is no more binding than any other law. Congress may pass a law changing it at any time (as far as U.S. law is concerned).
I will restate this. The KORUS free trade agreement is not a ratified treaty, which would be negotiated by the President and ratified by a two-thirds majority of the Senate. It is no more "the law of the land" than any other law passed by Congress and, under U.S. law, may be amended by Congress at any time (subject to the same provisions as any other law). If Congress passes a law modifying the agreement (which is what this is, it is not actually a treaty), that modification supersedes the previous law (agreement). If South Korea was unaware of this, they should pay closer attention to U.S. law before signing an agreement with the U.S.
Re: (Score:2)
No treaties are binding on Congress such that later-passed legislation doesn't supersede them. The most a treaty can manage is to stand at the same level as federal law, below the level of the Constitution.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just wrong, treaties supercede the Constitution.
However, Attila Dimedici noted that the KORUS free trade agreement is not really a treaty, so Congress may be able to override it easily, if they want.
Re: (Score:3)
No, treaties are inferior to the federal constitution. The constitution says so, in Article VI. Treaties are superior to state constitutions, however. (Also according to Art. VI)
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court said:
A treaty is primarily a contract between two or more independent nations, and is so regarded by writers on public law. For the infraction of its provisions, a remedy must be sought by the injured party through reclamations upon the other. When the stipulations are not self-executing, they can only be enforced pursuant to legislation to carry them into effect, and such legislation is as much subject to modification and repeal by Congress as legislation upon any other subject. If the treaty contains stipulations which are self-executing -- that is, require no legislation to make them operative -- to that extent they have the force and effect of a legislative enactment. Congress may modify such provisions so far as they bind the United States, or supersede them altogether. By the Constitution, a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. When the two relate to the same subject, the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other, provided always the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing. If the country with which the treaty is made is dissatisfied with the action of the legislative department, it may present its complaint to the executive head of the government and take such other measures as it may deem essential for the protection of its interests. The courts can afford no redress. Whether the complaining nation has just cause of complaint or our country was justified in its legislation are not matters for judicial cognizance.
Whitney v. Robertson, 124 US 190, 194 (1888). [justia.com]
It's nothing to do with conservative or liberal courts; the Supremacy Clause is very clearly written, and the last in time rule is well established.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just pass a new law that undoes some or all of a previously passed law. There are lots of people in Congress trying to undo Obamacare. Do it that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and those are extremists, they're not going to succeed as Obamacare is incredibly popular and going to get even more so when the last provisions go into effect.
It's mostly the far right that decries anything that might help the working classes that's opposed to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they don't. They trump state laws and state constitutions, but there is no power for the adoption of a treaty that is in conflict with the Constitution.
What? Yes it can. (Score:5, Interesting)
>US Government May Not Be Able To Fix Cell Phone Unlocking Problem
The U.S. (FCC/FTC?) can STOP the problem of locked phones by issuing an order saying that locked phones cannot be sold starting 5 minutes from now. The phone manufactures will starting doing back-flips unlocking new and current phones so fast the earths spin might slow down some.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC decides what carriers are and are not licensed to use the spectrum in the US, they could easily demand that phones not be locked to a given carrier if that carrier wishes to retain its license to use the spectrum.
The FCC does not require any justification for taking back spectrum as the licensees are not to claim ownership over it.
Re: (Score:2)
The FCC does not require any justification for taking back spectrum as the licensees are not to claim ownership over it.
I am pretty sure that the courts would disagree with that, at least I hope so. Because if the FCC does not requite any justification for taking back spectrum that means that they could shut down a carrier because it failed to sufficiently support the political agenda of those running the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's true, the people own the spectrum and the broadcasters just license it. In practice, the FCC tends to be staffed by appointees that don't want to press the point, but the FCC can take back the licenses at any time.
And tha'ts a load of hogwash, not requiring a reason is not the same as having an unconstitutional reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What? Yes it can. (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullshit! (Score:5, Insightful)
Invade another country? "No problem. We'll just have to change the rules."
Make it legal ( again ) to unlock phones? "We want to do it but our hands are tied."
Of course it is bullshit!
They are not doing it because their corporate owners don't want them to. They just want to make it seem like they are on our side. If they are, then who is this mystical other side that makes this impossible. This is bullshit.
Free Trade? Yeah right. (Score:5, Funny)
I find it really ironic that it is a "Free Trade Agreement" that is preventing an activity that fundamentally is "Free Trade" (you can sell an unlocked phone to someone on another network).
I believe it comes down to the fact that governments support business at the expense of small business and DIYers. Probably because small business can't aford lobbyists.
This has nothing to do with the carriers (Score:5, Insightful)
It is the carriers which are responsible for the locking. The suppliers don't give a rat's tail about whether a phone is locked or not. The carriers make the requests and the suppliers deliver on that request. Suppliers have no dog in the fight over locked vs. unlocked beyond the mild fact that a locked phone will likely stay in the region in which it was procured. But people who relocate and wish to take their phones with them are an insignificant minority.
I get the feeling this is a blame and information deflecting piece intended to point people in directions which are not relevant.
Re: (Score:3)
Arguably, it is to the supplier's advantage if the phone is locked and can never be unlocked because then that phone is irrevocably tied to one carrier. If the end-user wants to go to another carrier, they /have/ to buy a new phone; they can't unlock their existing phone and take it with them. This means an additional sale for the supplier.
In actuality, I'd guess that the number of end-users who actually DO bring their phones with them to a new carrier is such an insignificant amount that it's not worth the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The thing people are forgetting is the massive number of prepaid phones sold in the US, most (if not all) of which are sold below cost with no further payments required.
The carriers (including prepaid only carriers like TracFone) can get away with this because they know that the prepaid phone you just bought is locked to them and will only work with their network, forcing you to buy service through them.
Re: (Score:2)
It is the carriers which are responsible for the locking. The suppliers don't give a rat's tail about whether a phone is locked or not. The carriers make the requests and the suppliers deliver on that request. Suppliers have no dog in the fight over locked vs. unlocked beyond the mild fact that a locked phone will likely stay in the region in which it was procured. But people who relocate and wish to take their phones with them are an insignificant minority.
I get the feeling this is a blame and information deflecting piece intended to point people in directions which are not relevant.
The carriers want the lock to preserve their exclusivity to a device, not to lock the customer in. The manufacturers want the lock because they get kickbacks in exchange for the exclusivity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
/sarcasm>
{sarcasm} sorry... {/sarcasm}
Secret Treaty? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the most worrisome part of the story:
The draft text for TPP is secret, but the U.S. proposal for the IP chapter was leaked two years ago. The leaked proposal contained KORUS's closed list of exceptions.
How can the US sign a treaty that is secret from the citizens of the US? The government shouldn't be allowed to sign (or even consider) a trade treaty with secret terms. How else can the people know if they want to be party to the treaty?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Welcome to how the Republicans and Democrats operate. They are both utter scumbags.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It isn't secret anymore -- when they actually vote on it. But then there's no time to examine it, much less get public commentary, much less habe 6 months for people to think it over.
These are the same people who brought you the "we have to approve the health care bill to see what's in it."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You neglect that the terms of most treaties historically HAVE been secret; the precise terms of a treaty requiring mutual defense, combat forces, etc are almost invariably secret as the uncertainty gives the treaty extra 'reach' diplomatically.
Hell, many mutual defense treaties though the 19th century THEMSELVES have been secret - ie the public, and even other states don't even know they exist. (I'm looking at you, Bismarck.)
Different jurisdiction (Score:2)
IANAL but why would a treaty with Korea have any bearing on a contract dispute between an American consumer and an American cellphone service provider? Sure the provisions of the law may appear to be in conflict, but they apply to different jurisdictions.
Re: (Score:2)
Signed and ratified international treaties are US law.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed they are but their scope is international, not domestic. Korea would not have standing in a case between ATT and Freddybear in the matter of my unlocking my Samsung phone.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of the supremacy clause in the Constitution:
"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, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding."
Re: (Score:3)
All that says is that treaty law supersedes state law. It says nothing about whether a treaty can alter domestic contract law.
Treaty? BFD... (Score:2)
As if the US has never unilaterally ignored provisions of a treaty when it suits us? Not seeing why this should stop the POTUS, assuming he really gave a damn about the rights of anyone making less than $1mil a year.
US Government can do plenty (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if a treaty forbids Congress from correcting DMCA, it should be easy to do something about it. FCC could ban the manufacture, sale, and trafficking in devices which transmit on licensed spectrum, if those devices require DMCA violations in order to repurpose.
That wouldn't be as good as repealing DMCA, but it would make DMCA irrelevant to this narrow case. Can't unlock iPhones? Ok, unlocking iPhones will remain illegal. But it'll also be illegal to sell locked iPhones. If someone wants a locked iPhone, sell 'em a locked iPod Touch instead, implement the phone functionality using wifi.
Of course: fuck the treaty. Repeal DMCA instead. And fuck all these narrow DMCA-amending proposals which are limited to "wireless devices."
Not a treaty (Score:2)
These are agreements, not treaties (the pesky "A" in the KORUS FTA). They have not gone through the Senate as treaties. There was legislation to approve the agreement, which says [infojustice.org]
“No provision of the [KORUS] Agreement, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, which is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect.”
These agreements themselves are, as I understand it, the equivalent of a Presidential executive order; subject to being canceled at the stroke of a pen.
If they limit the President, it is an excuse, not compulsion.
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such thing as international law, except through treaty obligations. The US has no obligation to comply agreements. This agreement has the same status as an executive agreement, the President can void it at will. Note that the enabling act does not refer to "pre-existing" laws, but to any law. Congress can void this at will too, or pass laws that render parts of it moot, even over a Presidential veto if they so chose.
That is why the Constitution set up a treaty mechanism. Treaties are laws of the
Cell phone unlocking is legal in Canada (Score:2)
Barring a contractual agreement that is made with your cell phone provider that otherwise prohibits it (which is good for 2-3 years), it is explicitly legal in Canada to unlock a cell phone.
So why can't the USA adopt a similar solution to this problem as their neighbors to the north?
Otherwise, I can foresee a booming business in Canadian border-towns for people living in the states that are also near the border, where they could entirely legally unlock phones for people visiting from the USA (for a p
the fuck (Score:2)
Who is so fucking stupid at this point to say "oh, Obama may not actually be able to do anything about it anyway"? This is the administration which has essentially defined saying they'll do one thing, and not doing it. It's also the administration which has said they think it's cool to drone strike its own citizens.
Why the fuck do you think they'd do anything more than placate people at this point? Asinine.
Just abrogate the treaty (Score:2)
It's done all the time. *see: Geneva Conventions
Treaties are subordinate to laws, not the reverse (Score:4, Informative)
It is perfectly legal for the President to signa treaty that says "We will send all of our mushrooms to Canada."
Then Congress can pass a law that says "We will not send ANY mushrooms to Canada."
In such a case than it is illegal to send mushrooms to Canada, no matter what the treaty says. Canada can sue us in international court, and that court may assign sanctions to us, but they can not force us to send them all our mushrooms.
Re: (Score:2)
Even a self-executing treaty can be overridden by a federal statute, though the Court generally won't read a statute as having this effect implicitly, only when the statute expressly states its intent to override the treaty provision.
While GP was incorrect to state that treaties are "LESS powerful than Law", they still are not akin
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely incorrect.
You really need to learn the difference between self executing and non-self executing treaties. Many treaties themselves are most certainly be law, without subsequent legislation.
Also, they are broader in purview even than federal statutes. Take a look at Missouri v. Holland
Yes, IAL
Then you should be aware that KORUS FTA is not a treaty.
To the original poster, read the Constitution (Article VI, in this case)
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.
The crucial thing is that you left out the part about ratifying treaties (Article II, Section 2)
He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;...
That is a high bar, but it's what you have to do to have a Treaty become law. Once that happens, the President and Congress cannot ignore it. If it is just something the President signs, then he (or a later President) can sign something different.
Sorry Korea (Score:2)
Change the treaty terms. Tell South Korea to agree to the changes or the whole deal is off. Oh, and about those troops we have in your land ...
Alter the TPP discussions (Score:2)
There's no reason the TPP treaty can't be amended to require signatories have no anti-circumvention laws. The president has the power to get on this right now. He could do it today. It would be a totally legitimate political decision, too. "The people are saying this sucks. Let's try to not suck."
If such a change makes the agreement unacceptable to the other parties, then I guess "free trade" isn't very important, so I don't want to hear any more excuses about how these treaties are a vital priority.
If
Please. (Score:2)
Does anyone actually think the administration had any intent of following through on what it said? This was a PR stunt to try and look like good guys. They knew very well that there were hiccups because of the treaty but, more importantly, that the change would never get past congress in the first place.
Why are people still so naive about how the government in this country works? Maybe I'm overly cynical, but I have a preeeeeeeeetty solid track record of predicting how these things will work out. The ma
Re: (Score:2)
You're right but they still got what they wanted.
A) People praised them for "defending our rights"/"doing the right thing"
B) Many people "are disappointed but understand" or choose to blame an external factor so it was all image benefit and no loss.
I keep repeating. Do NOT listen to what a politician has to say. He will ALWAYS say whatever favors him politically. Instead, closely monitor his actions and you'll see the real deal.
such bullshit (Score:2)
"...U.S. proposal in the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) and existing obligations in the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (KORUS) and other free trade agreements to which the United States is a party."
1) the TPP is merely PROPOSED. It's complete bullshit to say we can't just CHANGE OUR PROPOSAL. Jesus.
2) US Law > treaties (at least within the US). Congress has to basically pass a law authorizing any treaty. That law can be rewritten, struck, etc just like ANY OTHER US LAW, as far as its appl
Treaties, schmeaties. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too many people hate on Obama for him to accomplish much.
Re: (Score:2)