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:At what point does President Obama begin to regret his blind support of ACTA?
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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: acta, constitution, executive agreement, jack goldsmith, larry lessig
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ACTA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ACTA
Oh, BTW: Cornell deleted...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.signalflight.com
That's not the kind of change we can believe in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
End Run
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: End Run
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: End Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: End Run
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When the checks start bouncing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ACTA
My guess is ... [drum-roll] ... never ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No, you didn't. Why even comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Different Argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Different Argument
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shine The Light For Freedom
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course, this same belief was also argued before the Supreme Court in Eldred v. Ashcroft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No ma'am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]