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.
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, barack obama, constitution, copyright, executive agreement, ron wyden, ustr
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Troll harder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What would it say about the goals of the Democratic party if every President they manage to elect does something that warrants being impeached?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Didn't anyone tell you? Trying to impeach the president is now considered an act of terrorism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
See Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#Corollaries_and_usage
http://randomactsofpatriot ism.blogspot.com/2011/08/godwins-law-and-my-corollary.html
http://isaacs.newsvine.com/_news/2009/03 /14/2546893-isaacs-corollary-to-godwins-law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Senator Ron Wyden makes me proud to be an Oregonian. How many other states can say that about one of their senators?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Isn't Congress Required To Approve ACTA?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: POWNED
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WhiteHouse petition!
Require that the Senate ratify the ACTA treaty rather than making it effective by Executive Order. http://wh.gov/4PW
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WhiteHouse petition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WhiteHouse petition!
Are they filtering out people who have at some point criticized the Obama administration?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WhiteHouse petition!
Of course, if nobody ever broke the law, nobody would have ever invented police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WhiteHouse petition!
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....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WhiteHouse petition!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law & Ignore
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law & Ignore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law & Ignore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Law & Ignore
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
(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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Law & Ignore
(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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Law & Ignore
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]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Law & Ignore
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proud, but skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proud, but skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
Watch a show called Portlandia... while it kind of goes to some extent to be overly funny, it's still hitting the barn wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
Oregon is starting to sound better all the time. I hear they might even have weather there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Proud, but skeptical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
...is a gift that just keeps on giving.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
Obama can hardly be said to be ignorant of the Constitution. He's just ignoring it willfully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Obama's ignorance of the Constitution...
Breaking an oath is what they impeached Clinton for, after all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
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).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
The better question here is why would Obama do this than get the rubber stamp from Congress?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
Keep dreaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Read the foreign affairs manual
You do mean Senator Wyden, of course. You still fail at trolling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I forsee an 'accident' coming for someone....
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.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sign the petition
require that the Senate ratify the ACTA treaty rather than making it effective by Executive Order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sign the petition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sign the petition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sen. Wyden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sen. Wyden
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How long before Wyden is called a racist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: How long before Wyden is called a racist?
Calling it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How long before Wyden is called a racist?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: How long before Wyden is called a racist?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If I sign it, that makes it legal.
Now kindly fuck off and stop bothering me.
Sincerely
King Obama"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
great article on ACTA's legality
[ link to this | view in chronology ]