Obama administration: ACTA is infact binding to the US

[Hyro-Sama]

Romney will shut this down when he becomes president.

LMFAO Republicans want this bill passed bad. Really bad.

It doesn't matter matter if it's Obama or Romney the Robot. Both will pass ACTA because the President of the USA doesn't dicate international law. The rest of the world does. They have no choice. Kiss you internet freedoms goodbye.

 

[the_randomizer]

This all the more proves just how sodding retarded Congress is. C'mon Obama, don't piss in our mouths and call it lemonade.

 

[freaksloan]

I'm confused, since when does International Law trump US Law?

The US Constitution is the law of the land, and NOTHING or NO ONE trumps it.

 

[Dimensional]

I'm confused, since when does International Law trump US Law?

Heh. It's funny how people think that US law is above international law. If that was the case, then the US would be ruling the world right now. It's not the case. The US has imports things, so they need other nations to support them, which means they have to abide by international laws or else all other nations will close trade with the US, and we will in the end suffer. So international law and trade agreements tend to trump national law because it's on a bigger scale.

 

[mysticwaterfall]

I'm confused, since when does International Law trump US Law?

The US Constitution is the law of the land, and NOTHING or NO ONE trumps it.

Treaties ratified by the senate are above federal law, per article vi of the constitution, provided they themselves are not unconstitutional.

In other words
Constitution > treaties > federal law > state law

 

[the_randomizer]

Those who formed ACTA can burn in hell for all I care.

 

[Gh0sti]

gameover this sucks so long to pirating

 

[mysticwaterfall]

gameover this sucks so long to pirating

Having a law and enforcing a law are different things.

 

[Qtis]

gameover this sucks so long to pirating

They could just as well start looking for people pirating stuff and sue them on a large scale. It's more about resources available for such use. Imagine if the record industry started a law suit against all infringers. It'd probably take more money at once for all the fees needed, more than the whole industry generates in a year or probably more. It's just not a viable option to do so. The legislation is just a bid behind on the matter since the problem is just too large for such an approach

 

[freaksloan]

I'm confused, since when does International Law trump US Law?

Heh. It's funny how people think that US law is above international law. If that was the case, then the US would be ruling the world right now. It's not the case. The US has imports things, so they need other nations to support them, which means they have to abide by international laws or else all other nations will close trade with the US, and we will in the end suffer. So international law and trade agreements tend to trump national law because it's on a bigger scale.

I am saying here in the UNITED STATES, US law is supreme and no other law trumps it.

If a treaty is unconsitutional, we as the US do not have to abide by it.

 

[Qtis]

I am saying here in the UNITED STATES, US law is supreme and no other law trumps it.

If a treaty is unconsitutional, we as the US do not have to abide by it.

You do understand that the US isn't almighty even though some may think so? If they sign an international treaty or declaration, they have to abide by it. If they don't, they'll be the next dung hole. Just like Iran, North Korea, etc. who have thought that they can do whatever they want now. Every country has more to lose from trying to avert already signed treaties. Sure some treaties can be worse and some can be better, but making them better is just a thing for congress and the like. If something's against the US laws, it may well be the US laws that end up being changed. Regardless of the historical background of something, laws are just rules made by people for people.

Looking back at the Cold War and the following Nuke limiting treaties, you'll notice that the US doesn't have a choice in the matter. If they'd have started stocking Nukes instead of disabling them, the Soviet Union would have been right behind them, even possibly ahead of them with the stockpiling. The end of that could have been quite drastic. Something catastrophic. More so than what ACTA/SOPA/PIPA/Whatever to come.

/rant.

 

[Foxi4]

I still don't think ACTA will pass. Obama didn't allow SOPA and PIPA to pass. This shouldn't pass either

It doesn't have to "pass" in the U.S, it's an International Threaty, it will be applied automatically provided it passes.

I'm confused, since when does International Law trump US Law?

The US Constitution is the law of the land, and NOTHING or NO ONE trumps it.

Treaties ratified by the senate are above federal law, per article vi of the constitution, provided they themselves are not unconstitutional.

In other words
Constitution > treaties > federal law > state law

Let's go one step further, actually...

International Law > Constitution > treaties > federal law > state law

The law of the United States is not supreme to International Laws, it never has been. Moreover, legislature that may be passed in the U.S may not break International Laws or treaties, otherwise the U.S simply asks for sanctions.

 

[Luckkill4u]

Politicians control the internet.....

This is why presidents get shot!

 

[Luigi2012SM64DS]

ATAC?
PIPA?
i know what sopa is.

 

[Foxi4]

Politicians control the internet.....

This is why presidents get shot!

No politician may ever control the internet, it's physically impossible to control all the traffic. Each day, Youtube alone uploads 48 hours of video footage each minute. There are 1440 minutes in a day, thus Youtube has to process 69120 hours of video daily. That's basically a 7-8 year's worth of video. *Daily*.

Internet is way too massive to be controlled that way, and Information circulates faster and faster with each generation of Internet technology introduced. It's a fight the establishment cannot and will not win - no matter what techniques they will employ, there are people out there who will go out of their way to break every security system, dodge every scanner and hack their way through this mess. For no reason at all, just "because".

 

[mysticwaterfall]

I still don't think ACTA will pass. Obama didn't allow SOPA and PIPA to pass. This shouldn't pass either

It doesn't have to "pass" in the U.S, it's an International Threaty, it will be applied automatically provided it passes.

I'm confused, since when does International Law trump US Law?

The US Constitution is the law of the land, and NOTHING or NO ONE trumps it.

Treaties ratified by the senate are above federal law, per article vi of the constitution, provided they themselves are not unconstitutional.

In other words
Constitution > treaties > federal law > state law

Let's go one step further, actually...

International Law > Constitution > treaties > federal law > state law

The law of the United States is not supreme to International Laws, it never has been. Moreover, legislature that may be passed in the U.S may not break International Laws or treaties, otherwise the U.S simply asks for sanctions.

The Supreme Court established in Reid vs Covert (1957) that the Constitution is supreme to treaties domestically. So if something in a treaty is ruled unconstitutional, that provision is null and void on US soil. So as far as US law is comcerned domestically, my original version is correct.

 

[Foxi4]

The Supreme Court established in Reid vs Covert (1957) that the Constitution is supreme to treaties domestically. So if something in a treaty is ruled unconstitutional, that provision is null and void on US soil. So as far as US law is comcerned domestically, my original version is correct.

International Law does not equal "treaty" though. I'll give you an example - let's say that the U.S all of a sudden decides that from now on, torturing POW's, especially terrorists, is legal. You would be in breach of several International Laws alogside the Human Rights bill, conviniently forgetting about the entire Geneva Convention.

Trust me, the repercusions againts the U.S would be more then severe. The fact that you "can" do it doesn't mean that you wouldn't be breaching any laws.

 

[Thesolcity]

I still don't think ACTA will pass. Obama didn't allow SOPA and PIPA to pass. This shouldn't pass either

AFAIK we've already signed it, and its up to the European parliament to pass or null this.

 

[mysticwaterfall]

The Supreme Court established in Reid vs Covert (1957) that the Constitution is supreme to treaties domestically. So if something in a treaty is ruled unconstitutional, that provision is null and void on US soil. So as far as US law is comcerned domestically, my original version is correct.

International Law does not equal "treaty" though. I'll give you an example - let's say that the U.S all of a sudden decides that from now on, torturing POW's, especially terrorists, is legal. You would be in breach of several International Laws alogside the Human Rights bill, conviniently forgetting about the entire Geneva Convention.

Trust me, the repercusions againts the U.S would be more then severe. The fact that you "can" do it doesn't mean that you wouldn't be breaching any laws.

Well there may or may not be repercussions (for instance, your terroist example certainly happened in Guantanamo, with nothing coming of it. The US doesn't acknowledge the ICC, etc ) it doesn't change the fact that's the way it is on domestic soil.. Is this right? Maybe not. Is this reality? Yes.

 

[Foxi4]

The Supreme Court established in Reid vs Covert (1957) that the Constitution is supreme to treaties domestically. So if something in a treaty is ruled unconstitutional, that provision is null and void on US soil. So as far as US law is comcerned domestically, my original version is correct.

International Law does not equal "treaty" though. I'll give you an example - let's say that the U.S all of a sudden decides that from now on, torturing POW's, especially terrorists, is legal. You would be in breach of several International Laws alogside the Human Rights bill, conviniently forgetting about the entire Geneva Convention.

Trust me, the repercusions againts the U.S would be more then severe. The fact that you "can" do it doesn't mean that you wouldn't be breaching any laws.

Well there may or may not be repercussions (for instance, your terroist example certainly happened in Guantanamo, with nothing coming of it. The US doesn't acknowledge the ICC, etc ) it doesn't change the fact that's the way it is on domestic soil.. Is this right? Maybe not. Is this reality? Yes.

The U.S did not face sanctions only because the acts in Guantanamo were not institutionalized - these were particular cases that have been "corrected" by the higher-ups and the responsible parties faced prosecution. There is no legislature in the U.S that would directly stand againts the international laws I mentioned.