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?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  1.  
    identicon
    IANAL, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 4:50am

    Clearly, the executive agreement should be abolished

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  2.  
    icon
    Sneeje (profile), Mar 26th, 2010 @ 4:59am

    Re: ACTA

    Mmmmmmmm... spammity spam, wonderful spam!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  3.  
    icon
    Mike Masnick (profile), Mar 26th, 2010 @ 5:07am

    Re: Re: ACTA

    Spam deleted...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  4.  
    icon
    Alex Bowles (profile), Mar 26th, 2010 @ 5:35am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  5.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Mar 26th, 2010 @ 5:48am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  6.  
    identicon
    robin, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 6:02am

    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:

    on the online service provider's monitoring its services or affirmatively seeking facts indicating that infringing activity is occurring


    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:

    Each Party shall enable right holders, who have given effective notification to an online service provider of materials that they claim with valid reasons to be infringing their copyright or related rights, to expeditiously obtain from that provider information on the identify of the relevant subscriber.


    which is a direct assault on american due process and any number of privacy and information protection laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  7.  
    icon
    Ima Fish (profile), Mar 26th, 2010 @ 6:04am

    "At what point does President Obama begin to regret his blind support of ACTA?"

    When the checks start bouncing?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  8.  
    identicon
    haiku, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 6:16am

    ACTA

    At what point does President Obama begin to regret his blind support of ACTA?

    My guess is ... [drum-roll] ... never ?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  9.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Mar 26th, 2010 @ 7:02am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  10.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 7:05am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  11.  
    icon
    Dark Helmet (profile), Mar 26th, 2010 @ 7:15am

    Re: Re: Re: ACTA

    "Spam deleted..."

    Oh, BTW: Cornell deleted...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  12.  
    identicon
    The Mighty Buzzard, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 7:25am

    Re:

    And what can I get you to drink with your food, Mr. Troll?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  13.  
    identicon
    C.T., Mar 26th, 2010 @ 7:32am

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  14.  
    icon
    Hephaestus (profile), Mar 26th, 2010 @ 7:46am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  15.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 8:15am

    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?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  16.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 8:16am

    Serious questions about the Anti-Citizen Trade Agreement? Who would have thought.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  17.  
    identicon
    Joshua Bova, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 8:22am

    Re: End Run

    Was that last sentence written by Orwell? I cannot believe how fast our Constitutional Rights are evaporating.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  18.  
    identicon
    bob, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 8:47am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  19.  
    identicon
    Another Use, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 9:23am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  20.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 11:33am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  21.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 3:40pm

    Re:

    Because those two things are the exact same!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  22.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 26th, 2010 @ 5:03pm

    Re:

    Coming from the "anonymous" lawyer who I'm sure has never ever lost any case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  23.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2010 @ 12:45am

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  24.  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Mar 27th, 2010 @ 8:09am

    Re: Re: Re:

    He can't find his chapstick?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

  25.  
    identicon
    Bill Long, Jan 26th, 2012 @ 11:16am

    No ma'am

    I'm never surprised when a Marxist acts like a dictator.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This