Citizens Demand To See Secret ACTA Treaty 223
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "One hundred groups of concerned citizens have united to demand a look at the secret ACTA (Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement) treaty and have drafted a letter to their representatives asking for information. We've discussed ACTA before, including what are believed to be parts of ACTA that lawmakers are trying to get a head start on."
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:3, Informative)
I think people are apathetic about stuff like this because they don't see how it affects them, and because they aren't aware and/or understand them. I'm aware of them and barely have a working knowledge of them. All I understand is that these corporate oligarchies are trying to perpetuate old systems that are still making them a$$loads of money by screwing over the consumer.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:5, Informative)
I believe that the Supremes ruled some (many?) years past that treaties cannot be used as an end-run around the constitution.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:2, Informative)
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, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Of course, due ratification isn't really required, per se. The 1963 Vienna Treaty on Consular Relations provides quite specifically that a republic is bound by a treaty it signs but does not ratify, since international law could well break down under the strain of two hundred different ratification mechanisms. I admit, however, that this applies only to international law, and that a conflict between international and domestic law in the United States would be unlikely to successfully stand based purely on the tenets of the Vienna treaty.
Yes, treaties can be an end-run around the constitution; that's their point. A constitution that could not survive losing a war (and the negative treaty-based consequences thereof) would have been a big problem in the early days.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:5, Informative)
In the US, at least, that's correct. The federal Constitution is supreme, with federal law and treaties at an equal level (where they conflict, the most recent trumps). All of those are superior to state constitutions, which are superior to state laws.
People often misread the Constitutional language indicating that treaties are superior to state constitutions, which is where the confusion arises.
This having been said, treaties are often used as an end-run around Congress. First, they're developed by the executive branch, which otherwise cannot write federal law at such a high level, and can be much more secretive and less receptive to the will of the people than Congress. Second, only the Senate is involved in ratification, and they cannot amend treaties, so it's a pure yes or no vote. Third, the Senate can be pressured into ratifying, on the basis that the US has committed to its treaty partners, after a diplomatic process that may have taken years, and shouldn't let them down at such a late stage. And fourth, if the treaty is not self-executing, Congress as a whole is pressured into enacting enabling legislation, lest we not be in compliance with the treaty.
It isn't good, but we're stuck with this system and its flaws, barring either a Constitutional amendment that would give Congress more of a diplomatic role, or the Congress (particularly the Senate) developing a spine and looking to the public interest.
Re:Democracy != Republic (Score:3, Informative)
Umm, technically ours would be a democratic republic. We don't vote on every issue, but we vote on many and the times when we don't vote on the issue we vote for the people that make the decision.
A republic does not require voting, Rome for example appointed people to their senate based purely on age, nothing more. They represented the people but the people weren't allowed to vote about anything.
Just because we're not in the model of the Athenian democracy, doesn't mean we aren't a type of democracy.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sorry, Mr. AC, but your interpretation of the constitution has no importance. All that matters is what the Supreme Court has to say [sweetliberty.org]
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:2, Informative)
Seems you and the parent here (as most people are) are unaware that the United States is not and never was a democracy.
Yes it is. It's a democratic republic.
No country in the history of civilization (including ancient Greece) has ever been a "pure democracy". Insisting on your kind of pedantry would make the word democracy completely useless.
Moreover, any country without a hereditary king is a republic, including Burma, Syria, Sadaam's Iraq, Mussolini's Italy, etc. So the word "republic" by itself doesn't mean much. Specifically, republic != liberty. The only way we've found to ensure liberty so far is to use a democratic republic.
The lack of MSM reports on this is Damning. (Score:5, Informative)
I just did a google news search, and nobody outside the ars technica/slashdot crowd has stories listed for this.
The fact that such a huge coalition is being ignored by CNN, NBC, ABC, REUTERS, et. al. shows how deeply these news agencies are buried under the thumb of the media cartels.
Positively disgusting.
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:5, Informative)
I'm also not the parent, but here are some good links that will explain what many people are concerned about:
Capitalism [wikipedia.org] which many people think is good.
Corporate Capitalism [wikipedia.org] which cause some people to be a bit worried.
Corporatocracy [wikipedia.org] which causes some people to be very worried.
Corporatism [wikipedia.org] which a very large number of people find extremely worrisome.
Fascism [wikipedia.org] which is considered to be a really, really bad idea by a very large number of people.
If you read through all of those links, ask yourself honestly where you feel that your country sits on the scale. The parent expresses concern. After reading these links, do you share their concern?
Re:Brave New World, 1984 (Score:5, Informative)
Yes it is. It's a democratic republic.
Actually it's a constitutional republic.
But nobody seem to bother with that old piece of paper these days.
Re:You'll never get your money back (Score:1, Informative)
>at the very least, we'd have less wars
That'd be "fewer wars", Sparky.
HTH. HAND.