manaman said:
Treaties supersede even the highest laws in the country that signs them. In all the countries that are going to sign off on this thing the various laws that need to be changed are looked at during the ratification process and after the treaty is ratified it can take a few years but the changes to law are made. So yes if Canada signs it (which it looks like they will) and ratifies it (which they most likely will) then it doesn't matter one little bit what you think of your country, or the US.
MisterShine, debunking false information on ACTA and the U.S. constitution since at least 8/31/2010
(Seriously though buddy, this was like 5 or 6 posts above yours)
I said the highest laws. The constitution of the US is not a body of laws but "is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States."
The laws passed in the wake of the treaty can and will overturn even federal laws on the book. You are most likely talking about the Reid v. Covert court ruling (not anything actually written into the constitution) that ruled laws passed cannot supersede the constitution. Thus in the US the treaty can completely change copyright law, but not violate free speech directly. Even ignoring possible violations of individual freedoms this treaty forces a shift towards content providers being directly responsible for copyright violations by users, including content shared over a network. It not only allows for ISPs to void network neutrality practices, it mandates that they do. The are few user submitted content sites around that can survive being held completely accountable for content submitted by users.
The treaty itself actually falls under the Supremacy Clause [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause]. And the treaty is superior to federal law.
The supreme court ruling over laws passed in the wake of a treaty has never been tested either.
In conclusion this all applies fine and dandy to the US, but seeing how the US constitution does not actually apply to Canada, I don't really see what you are getting at in response to my post anyway.
Ultratwinkie said:
treaties supercede laws, ACTA is an agreement. two different species. treaties are irrevocable but agreements can be dropped by either party if the wikipedia link is to be believed.
Everywhere I read about this thing addresses it as a treaty. I was basing most information off that, but if the ATCA is going to be treated as an executive agreement in the US I am actually hoping this things get signed by Obama. A executive agreement wouldn't have the reach this thing needs and would finally draw attention to the fact that the president can make far reaching agreements without the consent of congress.
As far as executive agreements go:
There is a long history of unilateral executive agreements in the US, with few challanges to them. Controversial agreemnts are historically done with the approval of congress so that they are less likely to be challenged.
Should Obama sign pass this off as a unilateral executive agreement we might finally get a supreme court ruling on the constitutionality of the president having sole authority to make agreements. As it stands now the president can and does make unilateral agreements without the consent of congress.
It has historically been liberal presidents that have campaigned for greater power in making unilateral agreements, and have opposed attempts to force congressional oversight onto these decisions. It would be a taste of justice to have a liberal president take these powers one step to far and force a ruling on them.
