
Senator Demands IP Treaty Details - phsr
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/01/senator-demands-details/
======
ggchappell
I'm rather baffled by this line, from the end of the article:

> The agreement does not require congressional approval.

How can that possibly be true?

EDIT: Some detail. The U.S. Constitution says that treaties made "under the
Authority of the United States" are "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article
VI). But it also says (Article II) that the president "shall have Power, by
and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two
thirds of the Senators present concur; ...."

That last bit about the Senate would seem to contradict the above statement.
Or perhaps ACTA does not require Senate confirmation, but then it isn't the
supreme law of the land.

~~~
gills
Speaking of the Constitution, the paragraph just after that which you've cited
from Article VI is interesting:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the
judges in every state shall be bound thereby, _anything in the Constitution or
laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding._ "

My interpretation, which seems to be supported by [1]: no treaty may expand
the powers of government beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If it is
shown to (which seems likely given al the secrecy), it becomes unenforceable
and we learn who to recall from office.

[1]
[http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&...](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=354&page=1)
(I found paragraph 2 of the opinion particularly salient to the topic), found
from
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Six_of_the_United_States_Constitution)

------
blintson
Well it's about fucking time. I posted a link to wikipedia in mid-December
showing that treaty negotiations are set to conclude in January, and I tripped
the spam filter. I said it there and I'll say it again, we've got to do
something.

It doesn't matter if you're not interested in politics. Politics is interested
in you. If you don't want to get f*d in the ass do something about it. I
called and mailed all the congressman for my state. If I knew how I'd set up a
site with free VOIP + contact info so people could call and complain.

I think Skype has a HUGE interest in making sure this treaty isn't signed. I
emailed them asking for VOIP to help. Any other HN'ers have ideas/have done
anything?

------
aarongough
If that treaty gets ratified in anything close to it's current form I'm pretty
sure I would not be alone in saying that I would immediately start looking for
a new country to move to...

~~~
tshtf
The list of ACTA countries is growing (from
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Counterfeiting_Trade_Agree...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement)):

United States, the European Commission, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Canada,
the European Union, Jordan, Mexico, Morocco, New Zealand, Republic of Korea,
Singapore and United Arab Emirates.

It isn't going to be easy to escape.

EDIT: spelling

~~~
aarongough
More and more I feel that starting a new country is a really good idea.

~~~
gnaritas
On what land? The days of just finding unclaimed land and calling it yours are
over. The world isn't as big as it used to be.

~~~
Devilboy
These guys have a plan: seasteading.org

------
mortenjorck
"Kirk said last month that the international community would walk away from
the negotiating table if the public could see the working drafts."

And this is supposed to be _reassuring?_

