Senator Wyden Asks President Obama: Isn't Congress Required To Approve ACTA?
from the good-question dept
As the US Trade Rep (USTR) under the Obama administration has made it clear that it has no intention of allowing Congress to ratify ACTA, but instead believes it can sign it unilaterally, we’ve finally seen someone in Congress notice that this appears to be unconstitutional. Senator Wyden has sent President Obama a letter asking some basic questions. From the letter:
Although the USTR insists that current U.S. law, and its application, conform to these standards, there are concerns that the agreement may work to restrain the U.S. from changing such rules and practices. As you know, the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter binding international agreements on matters under Congress’s plenary powers, including the Article I powers to regulate foreign commerce and protect intellectual property. Yet, through ACTA and without your clarification, the USTR looks to be claiming the authority to do just that.
The letter also responds to the repeated claims of the USTR that it can have this signed as an executive agreement because it doesn’t require changes to US law, by pointing out that’s not the rule:
The statement by the USTR confuses the issue by conflating two separate stages of the process required for binding the U.S. to international agreements: entry and implementation. It may be possible for the U.S. to implement ACTA or any other trade agreement, once validly entered, without legislation if the agreement requires no change in U.S. law. But, regardless of whether the agreement requires changes in U.S. law, a point that is contested with respect to ACTA, the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to enter a binding international agreement covering issues delegated by the Constitution to Congress’ authority, absent congressional approval.
Wyden details the situations under which the US can take part in binding international agreements, and points out that: “ACTA appears to be none of these.” He then asks President Obama to make clear that ACTA creates no international obligations for the US:
Mr. President, if you allow the USTR to express your assent to ACTA, then the agreement can bind the U.S. under international law even without Congress’ consent, because international law, not U.S. law, determines the binding effect of international agreements. According to many international law scholars, customary international law recognizes the ability of the chief executive of a country to bind its nation to an international agreement regardless of domestic legal requirements.
I request that as a condition of the U.S. putting forward any official instrument that accepts the terms of ACTA that you formally declare that ACTA does not create any international obligations for the U.S. — that ACTA is not binding. If you are unwilling or unable to make such a clarification, it is imperative that your administration provide the Congress, and the public, with a legal rationale for why ACTA should not be considered by Congress, and work with us to ensure that we reach a common understanding of the proper way for the U.S. to proceed with ACTA. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.
Filed Under: acta, barack obama, constitution, copyright, executive agreement, ron wyden, ustr
Comments on “Senator Wyden Asks President Obama: Isn't Congress Required To Approve ACTA?”
Oh look… a grandstand… with Wyden on top of it.
Nothing is new under the sun. Just waiting for some Fox news “journalist” to allude to Obama as a Muslim to make the day compelte.
Re: Re:
0/10
Troll harder.
Re: Re:
Perfect weather for Trolling isn’t it?
Re: Re:
Yep. And obviously his staffers sent Pirate Mike a copy ’cause they love the free press. Go get ’em, boys!
Re: Re: Re:
Anyone can get these documents.
Re: Re:
Ooooo, good definition of ad hominem. Please work on a definition of “begging the question” for tomorrow.
Re: Re:
Grandstanding or not, the fact is, he is trying to put a stop to the WH usurping powers granted to congress by the US Constitution. Regardless of his motive being pure or otherwise, ACTA needs stopped and congress needs to step in or forever be the door mat to the WH.
Re: Re: Re:
Presidents have faced impeachment for less.
What would it say about the goals of the Democratic party if every President they manage to elect does something that warrants being impeached?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Presidents have faced impeachment for less.
Didn’t anyone tell you? Trying to impeach the president is now considered an act of terrorism.
Re: Re:
Whoever keeps “flagging” posts simply because they contradict the Techdirt groupthink should stop it. It’s petty.
Re: Re: Re:
Whoever squats on techdirt blog to get the first comment for trolling should stop it. It’s not just petty.
Re: Re:
We need a new law. Godwin’s Law only covers Nazis and Hitler. We need one for Muslims and terrorists.
Re: Re: Re:
“The 9/11 Coralary to Godwin’s Law”?
See Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#Corollaries_and_usage
http://randomactsofpatriotism.blogspot.com/2011/08/godwins-law-and-my-corollary.html
http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03/14/2546893-isaacs-corollary-to-godwins-law
Ron Wyden is truly Google’s bitch.
Re: Re:
Bite Me!
Senator Ron Wyden makes me proud to be an Oregonian. How many other states can say that about one of their senators?
Ok.So what? And we believe that the RIAA and MPAA’s employes on the hill, otherwise known as congressmen and senator’s are NOT going to approve ACTA in its current form?
Re: Re:
Look at how hard the copyright goon squad is hitting these comments. With anti-corporate sentiment running high and big elections coming up, they don’t want to risk someone going off the rez and trying to score points with the voters by making a stink on this. Much better to sneak it in quietly.
Re: Re:
Our political system may be a sham, but our sham has procedures that must be followed under penalty of large campaign contributions.
"Isn't Congress Required To Approve ACTA?"
Well senator, these bags of money seem to disagree with you.
POWNED
Haha! Obama got POWNED! Haha!
Re: POWNED
Its spelled pwned not powned. If your going to use the word please spell it correctly.
Re: Re: POWNED
Nice one! It’s spelled it’s not its and you’re not your. Hilarious if that was intentional and even more hilarious if it wasn’t.
Re: Re: Re: POWNED
Actually, ‘it is’ is abbreviated as ‘its’ since ‘it’s’ describes a possessive.
Re: Re: Re:2 POWNED
You have that backwards. His, hers, its. He is he’s, she is she’s, it is it’s.
Re: Re: Re:3 POWNED
You are correct sir, i stand here bathed in wrong =D
Re: Re: Re:4 POWNED
Well just be quick with it. I’m almost certainly going to need my turn soon.
Re: Re: Re:5 POWNED
Don’t use up the hot water!
Re: Re: Re:4 POWNED
You see, trolls? This is how we spot you – you NEVER admit you are wrong. My guess is that The Mighty Buzzard and blaktron aren’t trolls…
50% chance: Completely ignored by the administration.
50% chance: A previous statement, debunked long ago, is given as justification.
100% chance: ACTA will be enforced everywhere, whether they have the right to or not. It will cause several problems, and solve none.
WhiteHouse petition!
WhiteHouse.gov has an active petition to stop this nonsense!
Require that the Senate ratify the ACTA treaty rather than making it effective by Executive Order. http://wh.gov/4PW
Re: WhiteHouse petition!
I love how I’ve tried signing up/creating an account to sign petitions there 3 times and it somehow never sends me the confirmation email. Glad they’re making it easy. /sarcasm
Re: Re: WhiteHouse petition!
Same thing here, never got any confirmation e-mail.
Are they filtering out people who have at some point criticized the Obama administration?
Re: Re: Re: WhiteHouse petition!
That would be illegal, given it’s a government site.
Of course, if nobody ever broke the law, nobody would have ever invented police.
Re: Re: WhiteHouse petition!
I like how after creating an account and logging in, the ‘sigh petition’ button is still greyed out….
Obviously they don’t want people to be able to sign up or sign the petitions, as that would indicate that people aren’t happy with what they are doing….
Re: WhiteHouse petition!
international treaties cannot be enacted by executive order.
Law & Ignore
Too bad the Constitution is in the way with all its pesky laws, Obama is cutting off his nose (making it The Leader) to spite his face.
This President’s arrogance knows no bounds,
Kill Lists,
Telling Congress to F Off,
Pushing the DOJ to ignore the Laws (F&F, Wiretapping US Citizens, Writing its own Warrants, etc),
Starting a War without any consideration to the Constitution.
Just try and stop him. Even when Wyden is correctly acting in his capacity, he still gets lambasted by Obama groupies, the comments on this post are a perfect example.
Re: Law & Ignore
Correction: “Some” comments on this post…
Re: Law & Ignore
i don’t really think the Doj needed much of a push…
Re: Law & Ignore
Too bad the Constitution is in the way with all its pesky laws, Obama is cutting off his nose (making it The Leader) to spite his face.
This President’s arrogance knows no bounds,
Kill Lists,
Telling Congress to F Off,
Pushing the DOJ to ignore the Laws (F&F, Wiretapping US Citizens, Writing its own Warrants, etc),
Starting a War without any consideration to the Constitution.
Just try and stop him. Even when Wyden is correctly acting in his capacity, he still gets lambasted by Obama groupies, the comments on this post are a perfect example.
Starting a war? I think I must have missed that one. What war did Obama start?
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
I think he means the libya action, you know nato, drone strikes etc. it was a military action using US Armed forces and equipment.
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
Libya
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
Don’t forget Yemen…
(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON – The New York Times says the Obama administration has intensified the covert U.S. war in Yemen, hitting militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets.
The newspaper says the accelerated campaign has occurred in recent weeks as conflict in Yemen has left the government there struggling to cling to power.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/09/501364/main20070252.shtml#ixzz1OoccDVRf
Re: Re: Re: Law & Ignore
Don’t forget Yemen…
(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON – The New York Times says the Obama administration has intensified the covert U.S. war in Yemen, hitting militant suspects with armed drones and fighter jets.
The newspaper says the accelerated campaign has occurred in recent weeks as conflict in Yemen has left the government there struggling to cling to power.
Read more: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/09/501364/main20070252.shtml#ixzz1OoccDVRf
Outrageous. He should just invite them over to the White House for dinner and reason with them.
Re: Re: Re:2 Law & Ignore
or mind his own business. just because someone asks for assistance doesn’t mean you have to give it. Usually, people consider their own situation before committing to spending millions of dollars on something.
Oh, you mean we are and have been operating in the red? For how long? Unemployment is at what percent? The banks are doing what?
I’m sorry mr leader of yemen, but we cannot help you at this time. THe most we can do is send you some advisors to teach you how to treat your populace so they don’t rise against you. Don’t expect it to work for too long, tho, [its not going so well for us back home]
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
Ever hear of this country called Libya? Yeah Obama started that war without even consulting with congress. They posed no direct threat to our nation thus he had no authority to use force against anyone in that country.
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
Obama set a bit of a dangerous precedent for U.S. law in his assertion, if it is allowed to stand.
By Obama’s reasoning, if Al Qaeda had used drones or missiles instead of airliners on 9/11, they would not have committed an act of war nor a hostile act. Because bombing someone by remote control isn’t an act of war (since if it were, he’d need Congress to approve his doing it within a certain span of time).
Proud, but skeptical
It makes me proud to be an Oregonian that so often Wyden and Defazio seem to be the only legislators making a stand against stupid crap like this. I’ll be surprised if it makes a difference, they seem to get ignored or steamrolled more often than not, but at least they seem to be trying.
Re: Proud, but skeptical
I’d like to order a couple of Wydens for my state, is Oregon going to be making any more or do you guys want the monopoly on politicians with heads outside their asses?
Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
I’d like to order a couple of Wydens for my state, is Oregon going to be making any more or do you guys want the monopoly on politicians with heads outside their asses?
The problem isn’t politicians with their heads up their own asses, it’s that they have their heads up their corporate masters’ asses.
ps I’m glad to have recently moved to Oregon.
Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
Unfortunately, Wyden isn’t really representing Oregon any more, since he lives in New York with his wife most of the time. Kind of a running joke here in Oregon.
Re: Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
Maybe in the crowd you run with, but not in my crowd. Wyden is well respected, has done, and likely will continue to do a lot of good work for Oregon. He has his imperfections as we all do, but he’s far from a joke.
Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
Technically you need to order up a Portland Oregon. Sense what your getting is the left leaning guys that the city is sending you.
Watch a show called Portlandia… while it kind of goes to some extent to be overly funny, it’s still hitting the barn wall.
Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
Unfortunately I live in the capital of liberalism, California.
Oregon is starting to sound better all the time. I hear they might even have weather there.
Re: Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
Define: weather…
If “Today’s forecast, showers, followed by rain. Tomorrow: rain, followed by showers” doesn’t faze you, and/or you love the smell of rain, & you think people who use umbrellas are either wimps or people from California. Then you know you’re from Oregon.
Re: Re: Re:2 Proud, but skeptical
That’s not fair, it’s only like that for 10 months out of the year, at most. July and August are quite nice!
Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
.
…is a gift that just keeps on giving.
.
Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
To be somewhat more fair, the overreach of executive authority is just a continuation of the last administration’s policy. Bush never intended to run this through Congress either, and the secret negotiations for ACTA were set up under his administration.
Obama can hardly be said to be ignorant of the Constitution. He’s just ignoring it willfully.
Re: Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
And Obama specifically campaigned on the premise he would stop what Bush began; that man is a hypocrite and a scum bag far worse than both of the shrubs combined.
Re: Re: Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
I so agree with you! We’ve been had BIG TIME, by the greatest con-artist ever!
Re: Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
Dude, doing something you personally ripped on the previous administration for is not “just a continuation of the last administration’s policy”. It is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Re: Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
Which would make him both a domestic enemy of the Constitution and an oathbreaker.
Breaking an oath is what they impeached Clinton for, after all.
I’m afraid that my reasons for entering into a binding international agreement without the consent of Congress are classified.
Re: Re:
Do NOT give them any ideas!
Re: Re:
Not only classified but also trade secrets and intellectual property
Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
This problem is bigger than ACTA. This is standard operating procedure.
Google for “11 FAM 721” and read the entire section 721 (it’s not that big). It grants great leeway in deciding what international agreements can be made without a treaty, and it doesn’t make much distinction regarding article I, or II issues (especially when there are no legislative hurdles to enactment) . The manual in a wishy-washy way says that it’s nice to consult congress sometimes in deciding what type of agreement to use. But it doesn’t require it, nor does it say that they have to listen or obey the opinions of congress during their consultation.
They’re playing by the book (unfortunately, it’s a book that they wrote).
Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
This problem is bigger than ACTA. This is standard operating procedure.
Google for “11 FAM 721” and read the entire section 721 (it’s not that big). It grants great leeway in deciding what international agreements can be made without a treaty, and it doesn’t make much distinction regarding article I, or II issues (especially when there are no legislative hurdles to enactment) . The manual in a wishy-washy way says that it’s nice to consult congress sometimes in deciding what type of agreement to use. But it doesn’t require it, nor does it say that they have to listen or obey the opinions of congress during their consultation.
They’re playing by the book (unfortunately, it’s a book that they wrote).
Oh goodness!!!! Why this would mean that Mike’s suggestion that there is a Constitutional issue is, is, ……. FUD??? Oh that couldn’t be….. could it?
Re: Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
There’s still constitutional issues. Even if we were to assume that the manual is not giving out unconstitutional instructions (very arguable), you can still question the interpretation of the manual.
For instance, here’s the wording specifying which non-treaty agreements are allowable:
…
(2) Agreements Pursuant to Legislation
The President may conclude an international agreement on the basis of existing legislation or subject to legislation to be enacted by the Congress;
and
(3) Agreements Pursuant to the Constitutional Authority of the President
The President may conclude an international agreement on any subject within his constitutional authority so long as the agreement is not inconsistent with legislation enacted by the Congress in the exercise of its constitutional authority. The constitutional sources of authority for the
President to conclude international agreements include:
(a) The President’s authority as Chief Executive to represent the nation in foreign affairs;
(b) The President’s authority to receive ambassadors and other public ministers;
(c) The President’s authority as “Commander-in-Chief?; and
(d) The President’s authority to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
I imagine that the administration could argue that ACTA could fit under either of these categories. However I would argue that #2 refers to actual instructions from congress to make an agreement, not just an agreement that doesn’t require additional laws. And # 3 requires that the subject be limited to matters within presidential responsibility. I suppose they could argue that this is just part of the president’s authority to see that the laws are faithfully executed.. But I would argue that that authority does not grant the president authority to hobble congress’s ability to change the law.
Re: Re: Re:2 Read the foreign affairs manual
And what if Congress were to pass a binding resolution with a veto-proof majority overturning or forbidding ACTA?
Re: Re: Re:3 Read the foreign affairs manual
What’s the likelihood of that happening?
The better question here is why would Obama do this than get the rubber stamp from Congress?
Re: Re: Re:3 Read the foreign affairs manual
And what if Congress were to pass a binding resolution with a veto-proof majority overturning or forbidding ACTA?
Keep dreaming.
Re: Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
Oh goodness!!!! Why this would mean that Mike’s suggestion that there is a Constitutional issue is, is, ……. FUD??? Oh that couldn’t be….. could it?
You do mean Senator Wyden, of course. You still fail at trolling.
I forsee an 'accident' coming for someone....
It’s only possible to push back so much against those in power, before they start pushing as well.
While our pushing looks like ‘Occupy Wallstreet’ or Wyden standing up to the President, you’ll never see their pushing until it’s too late…..
Sign the petition
we petition the obama administration to:
require that the Senate ratify the ACTA treaty rather than making it effective by Executive Order.
Re: Sign the petition
Hell, I’ve been signing president@whitehouse.gov up for all my spam for over a decade now. No way am I giving them anything but an unverifiable, throw-away address that would be useless for a petition.
Re: Sign the petition
Signed @ http://wh.gov/4PW
Sen. Wyden
Go Wyden!!!
Re: Sen. Wyden
Yeah, everytime I think this guy can not be any more awesome, he goes and proves me wrong.
How long before Wyden is called a racist?
How long before Wyden is called a racist? This is an excellant way to avoid dealing with the substance of the issue.
Re: How long before Wyden is called a racist?
What I expect is that during this winter, right before the holidays, Obama is going to sign the ACTA.
Calling it now.
Re: Re: How long before Wyden is called a racist?
Congress really should have someone on standby to arrest him if he attempts to sign it. Would make for political hilarity. Or at the very least, obtain a court order expressly barring him from signing it.
Re: Re: How long before Wyden is called a racist?
But the question is, if the President lacks the lawful authority to sign ACTA into effect, how would his signing it be any different, in a binding and/or legal sense than, say, you or I signing it?
To implement it, Congress must be involved. Unless Obama’s next “refinement” to extraordinary rendition will be to allow foreign police forces to enter the U.S. to make arrests for ACTA violations?
In case you didn’t notice, that would meet all of the legal criteria for a Treason charge.
It’s no coincidence Ron Kirk is from Texas.
Regardless of whether the White House can, should, or will sign the agreement, they’ll have a hell of a time implementing or enforcing it without Congressional cooperation.
Re: Re:
Regardless of whether the White House can, should, or will sign the agreement, they’ll have a hell of a time implementing or enforcing it without Congressional cooperation.
What makes you think anyone in the Senate other than Wyden has an issue. You may note from the vote on the jobs bill that they’re not exactly reticent when it comes to bitch-slapping the President.
Wyden is Google’s pet senator and they wind him up and send him out as their messenger boy on issues that may affect there business.
Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, the content industry just have more wind up toys than everyone else…
Re: Re: Re:
Wyden is Google’s pet senator
Not surprisingly, this is a total lie. Let’s look at Wyden’s contributors:
Google isn’t even in the Top 20; in fact, no internet idustry is.
On the other hand, his #1 contributor is Nike – one of the companies who instructed ICE to seize websites, and a notoriously overreaching IP protectionist. If Wyden really was the “pet senator” of his contributors, he wouldn’t be standing up against ACTA, the seizures, or PROTECT IP.
“Pet senator” more accurately describes Patrick Leahy, the Democratic senator from Vermont who sponsored the PROTECT IP act. Let’s take a look at his top 20 contributors:
In other words, out of his top 20 contributors, fully half of them are companies that are directly pushing for stronger IP laws.
Of course, Google also makes Leahy’s list… unlike Wyden’s. Ironic that you don’t call Leahy “Google’s pet senator.” I guess you only make that accusation when that Senator doesn’t agree with you.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you need to also consider that Facebook is opening a huge data center in Prineville and Google’s server farm is located in The Dalles.
http://oregonbusinessreport.com/2010/12/transcript-sen-wyden-business-summit-remarks/
There are more effective ways t grease the skids than maxing out on campaign contributions.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
Perhaps you need to also consider that Facebook is opening a huge data center in Prineville and Google’s server farm is located in The Dalles.
Interesting, especially as the link you posted only mentioned this in passing, as evidence of job creation there. It did not mention anything about any bills that helped this along – unlike the logging or biomass industries, which Wyden explicitly connected to Washington policies.
It’s also interesting how this would make Wyden a “pet senator” of Google, and not Jeff Merkley, the other Senator from Oregon. Nor, for that matter, do you mention Greg Walden, Earl Blumenauer, Peter A. DeFazio, or Kurt Schrader – the House members from Oregon.
You also fail to mention that Google has data centers in Seattle, Chicago, Houston, Miami, two in Atlanta, four in California, and three in Virginia. I guess all the Senators in those states are also “pet senators,” right?
And besides – who cares what Google thinks? The outrage over ACTA is not driven primarily by Google, or any other tech company. The ones who have the biggest concerns are civil liberties and consumer rights groups: the EFF, the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the Future of Music Coalition, the Liberty Coalition, the CDT, the Open Content Alliance, the Sunlight Foundation, OpenTheGovernment.org, Public Knowledge, and Change Congress. Op-ed’s against it have appeared even in conservative magazines like Forbes. Not to mention the huge opposition to the treaty from the European Union, Mexico, China, and pretty much the entire Third World.
Presenting everyone who is opposed to ACTA as “a tool of Google” is spreading FUD, pure and simple.
“Dear Senator Wyden,
If I sign it, that makes it legal.
Now kindly fuck off and stop bothering me.
Sincerely
King Obama”
This guy Wyden doesn’t stop to impress me. I can see some mainstream media attempts to discredit and destroy him.
Still, good work. I’m not American but I’m seriously thinking of giving him the monies to spend with his polls. Does he have a flattr button? *troll face* No rly, I’m serious ahahaha
great article on ACTA's legality
http://www.lasisblog.com/2012/01/28/acta-a-treaty-by-any-other-name/