ACTA Raising Serious Constitutional Questions
from the executive-agreements? dept
One of the talking points from ACTA supporters was always that it wasn’t a “treaty” but an “executive agreement,” claiming that this meant something different. However, as we discussed back in February, this is misleading. Executive agreements are generally a way to sneak treaties through without Congressional approval. That post linked to a great legal analysis by Andrew Moshirnia for the Citizen Media Law Project — but some ACTA supporters in our comments claimed that since Moshirnia was “just a second year law student,” his arguments were meaningless (of course, this commenter also ignored all of the legal citations Moshirnia raised (funny, that…)).
But it appears that some law professors are also pretty concerned about trying to sneak ACTA through by calling it an executive agreement. Harvard law professors Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig have penned an opinion piece for the Washington Post where they lay out an explanation for why calling ACTA an executive agreement may not be Constitutional:
The administration has suggested that a sole executive agreement in this instance would not trample Congress’s prerogatives because the pact would not affect U.S. domestic law. Binding the United States to international obligations of this sort without congressional approval would raise serious constitutional questions even if domestic law were not affected. In any event, an anti-counterfeiting agreement made on the president’s own authority could affect domestic law in at least three ways:
First, the noncriminal portions of this agreement that contemplate judicial enforcement can override inconsistent state law and possibly federal law. Second, the agreement could invalidate state law that conflicts with its general policies under a doctrine known as obstacle preemption, even if the terms are not otherwise judicially enforceable. Third, a judicial canon requires courts to interpret ambiguous federal laws to avoid violations of international obligations. This means courts will construe the many ambiguities in federal laws on intellectual property, telecom policy and related areas to conform to the agreement.
If the president proceeds unilaterally here, ACTA will be challenged in court. But the best route to constitutional fidelity is for Congress or the Senate to protect its constitutional prerogatives. When the George W. Bush administration suggested it might reach a deal with Russia on nuclear arms reduction by sole executive agreement, then-Sen. Joe Biden wrote to Secretary of State Colin Powell insisting that the Constitution required Senate consent and implicitly threatening inter-branch retaliation if it was not given. The Bush administration complied.
Congress should follow Biden’s lead. If the president succeeds in expanding his power of sole executive agreement here, he will have established a precedent to bypass Congress on other international matters related to trade, intellectual property and communications policy.
At what point does President Obama begin to regret his blind support of ACTA?
Filed Under: acta, constitution, executive agreement, jack goldsmith, larry lessig
Comments on “ACTA Raising Serious Constitutional Questions”
Clearly, the executive agreement should be abolished
ACTA
Mmmmmmmm… spammity spam, wonderful spam!
Re: ACTA
Spam deleted…
Re: Re: ACTA
“Spam deleted…”
Oh, BTW: Cornell deleted…
http://www.signalflight.com
The irony, of course, is that Biden is now trying to argue the opposite side of the same argument – after all, he’s ACTA’s primary champion in the White House, and has anchored the Executive lead on the provisions it contains. As such, he’s doing what he specifically argued against – on fundamental Constitutional grounds, no less.
That’s not the kind of change we can believe in.
The really scary thing about the ACTA to me is that it will create a parallel WIPO organization to ensure enforcement.
Why is that bad? In the US Copyrights and patents are government granted monopolies. They are not property rights and they exist solely through the grace of government.
Thus, there is no right that copyrights should last past the death of the author. There is no right regarding the performance of copyrighted music. There is no right that digital protections must be enforced.
Sure our laws were changed to enlarge the government granted monopolies to include such activities. But they are not inherent rights. Our government can change those laws without violating anyone’s rights.
To contrast a bit, real property rights are a part of those unalienable rights you hear about. Property rights are not given by the government, they exist independently from the government and are are protected by the government.
So here’s the real scary problem with the ACTA. It takes monopolies granted by our government and gives them to an unelected foreign body to enforce and expand upon. Our government will no longer be free to limit those government granted monopolies. Forevermore, imaginary property will become unalienable property.
End Run
the whole thing is an end run around the constitution, from beginning to end. to wit:
chapter 2, section 4, article 2.17, paragraph 3, option 1 wants to condition any safe harbor of service providers on:
which guts and changes the dmca and the cda
but wait, there’s worse!!
chapter 2, section 4, article 2.17, paragraph 3, option 3ter:
which is a direct assault on american due process and any number of privacy and information protection laws.
Re: End Run
“which is a direct assault on american due process and any number of privacy and information protection laws.”
If you read the sections related to copyright every single one of them can be challenged in court. They violate due process, the constitution, wiretap laws, etc. The president also has no constitutional right-authority or historic precedent to do this. ACTA does the exact opposite of what the framers of the constitution intended with the copyright clause.
Re: End Run
Was that last sentence written by Orwell? I cannot believe how fast our Constitutional Rights are evaporating.
Re: Re: End Run
One of the reasons for the second amendment, The right to bear arms, was put on in place to defend against an undemocratic government.
“At what point does President Obama begin to regret his blind support of ACTA?“
When the checks start bouncing?
ACTA
At what point does President Obama begin to regret his blind support of ACTA?
My guess is … [drum-roll] … never ?
the only ones have constitutional concerns are the same ones who think copyright violates the first amendment. that pretty much sums it all up nicely.
Re: Re:
And what can I get you to drink with your food, Mr. Troll?
Re: Re:
No, it doesn’t sum it up, nicely or otherwise. DId you even bother to read the article?
No, you didn’t. Why even comment?
Different Argument
You do realize how different the argument in the Lessig/Goldsmith piece is from the one you were trumpeting a month or two ago, right?
Re: Different Argument
Actually its more like an extension of what was said here 8 weeks ago. Also until 1 week ago they only had bits a pieces of ACTA so they were working with partial information. Now that most of the blanks have been filled in the members of TechDirt can have an informed discussion about ACTA based on facts and not speculation.
Serious questions about the Anti-Citizen Trade Agreement? Who would have thought.
Shine The Light For Freedom
First, the noncriminal portions of this agreement that contemplate judicial enforcement can override inconsistent state law and possibly federal law. Second, the agreement could invalidate state law that conflicts with its general policies under a doctrine known as obstacle preemption, even if the terms are not otherwise judicially enforceable. Third, a judicial canon requires courts to interpret ambiguous federal laws to avoid violations of international obligations. This means courts will construe the many ambiguities in federal laws on intellectual property, telecom policy and related areas to conform to the agreement.
This is why you need good constitutional judges on the federal courts, not ones who willy nilly interpret the constitution with the judicial group thought of the day.
Congress should follow Biden’s lead. If the president succeeds in expanding his power of sole executive agreement here, he will have established a precedent to bypass Congress on other international matters related to trade, intellectual property and communications policy.
Biden is now in lock step with the president as is the congress, who are bought and paid for by Hollywood.
At what point does President Obama begin to regret his blind support of ACTA?
LOL
All that can be done is to continue to report on ACTA.
If Lessig et al. believes constitutional questions are surely involved with respect to ACTA, then it must be so.
Of course, this same belief was also argued before the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft.
Re: Re:
Because those two things are the exact same!
Re: Re:
Coming from the “anonymous” lawyer who I’m sure has never ever lost any case.
Re: Re: Re:
Why would a lawyer post anonymously? I mean, I can understand an artist posting anonymously, there’s a history of anonymity in art.
But why would a lawyer? Who’s heard of an anonymous lawyer who can’t even make a decent argument?
I think it’s coming more from an “anonymous” court stenographer. That’s my guess.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
He can’t find his chapstick?
No ma'am
I’m never surprised when a Marxist acts like a dictator.