Libertarian ping! Click here to get added or here to be removed or post a message here!
Posted on 03/27/2009 1:07:36 PM PDT by Lorianne
The Office of U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), part of President Barack Obama's office, has denied a company's request for information about a secretive anticounterfeiting trade agreement being negotiated, citing national security concerns.
The USTR this week denied a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Knowledge Ecology International, an intellectual-property research and advocacy group, even though Obama, in one of his first presidential memos, directed that agencies be more forthcoming with information requested by the public.
The USTR under Obama seems to be taking the same position about the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) as it did under former President George Bush, that the treaty documents are not open to the public. One of Obama's campaign promises was to make government more open and responsive to the public.
The USTR, in a letter to Knowledge Ecology International's director James Love, said information in ACTA, an anticounterfeiting and antipiracy pact being negotiated among the U.S. and several other nations, is "properly classified in the interest of national security."
Critics of the secrecy say the treaty could have a major impact on the way the U.S. enforces intellectual-property law, including the potential for U.S. law enforcement agencies arresting U.S. residents for breaking other countries' IP laws.
(Excerpt) Read more at pcworld.com ...
Not sure I understand what you are saying.
Treaties are subsummed to the Constitution.
The people in Washington no longer govern America...
I wish you were correct, but I not sure you are.
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.It's a hole big enough for a liberal to drive a truck through. So if you favorite politicians agree to a treaty that you cannot say anything bad about Islam, the first amendment is toast. (It's toast anyway, in case you haven't noticed.) The laws of Congress must be pursuant to the Constitution, but not the treaties. I don't like it but even I think this is a reasonable interpretation of this clause, and considering that half the Court already wants us to be bound by foreign law, I'd say we're in trouble.
ML/NJ
“any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. “
I understand your point and am not trying to be argumentative.
From what I have studied, that is subordinating STATE judges; STATE laws; and STATE constitutions. Just as states have no power to negotiate treaties, they are also bound by treaties negotiated by the federal government.
It has nothing to do with the US Constitution.
That is not to say that five Ginsburgs couldn't rule otherwise.
I agree that the part you quoted does just that. The part I quoted is the one that puts treaties on an equal plane with the Constitution itself, and since the treaties come after what exists at the time they are written, it's really not hard to argue that they are superior to it just as the Amendments are.
ML/NJ
...The more they fast track and cover up, the better it is to see through them...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.