badinfluence
2010-09-08 21:28:51
For anyone that doesn't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement
badinfluence
2010-09-08 21:28:51
MondaySunshine
2010-09-08 23:07:56
Va|iums
2010-09-08 23:56:56
Uncle Rico
2010-09-09 00:04:28
That's about right.MondaySunshine wrote:Bush administration...
...kept super-secret
Fucking Palin.Va|iums wrote:Be aware that both executive agreements and treaties automatically override the U.S. Constitution...
...President more willing to engage in ACTA.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 00:07:03
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 00:26:43
Va|iums
2010-09-09 00:37:53
Once again you make me do face furls instead of facerolls.The Argumentalizer wrote:"Be aware that both executive agreements and treaties automatically override the U.S. Constitution."
Umm,excuse me!?!?
That is nonsense. Nothing in the United States overrides the Con. except Martial Law.
{Rx}Crowbar Ninja DJ Z3R0
2010-09-09 00:39:13
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 00:43:22
False. Absolutely false. Both executive agreements and treaties are subject to review by the Supreme Court just like any other legislative act or agency rule. The Supreme Court has unfettered jurisdiction to declare both treaties and executive orders unconstitutional.Va|iums wrote:Be aware that both executive agreements and treaties automatically override the U.S. Constitution.
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 00:56:49
provost
2010-09-09 01:22:00
Sacrifist
2010-09-09 01:35:21
awesome sauceprovost wrote:
Va|iums
2010-09-09 02:04:12
Let's take the orders of proceedings.MondaySunshine wrote:False. Absolutely false. Both executive agreements and treaties are subject to review by the Supreme Court just like any other legislative act or agency rule. The Supreme Court has unfettered jurisdiction to declare both treaties and executive orders unconstitutional.Va|iums wrote:Be aware that both executive agreements and treaties automatically override the U.S. Constitution.
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 02:19:40
I might need someone to translate this into a language that I understand. But if I'm getting you right, you're arguing two thingsVa|iums wrote:The Court reviews a law already there. The purpose of my argument is to demonstrate a treaty has a similar weight of value toward the Constitution as a federal statute does. The other point is to show that if ACTA is worded vaguely enough, it could bypass strict judicial review and become murky in the areas of privacy of property.
Ghost Dog_TSGK
2010-09-09 02:21:56
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-09 02:33:12
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 02:34:33
Va|iums
2010-09-09 02:44:54
Is it silly? Do you know that there are federal acts that have never been challenged in any federal court in our history? What if that act is unconstitutional but no one has brought suit for the courts to review? My point is a technicality to demonstrate a broader point you seem to missing but it is as simple as this.MondaySunshine wrote:
I might need someone to translate this into a language that I understand. But if I'm getting you right, you're arguing two things
a) Because the Supreme Court reviews legislative actions retrospectively and not prospectively, treaties are valid before they become invalid
b) The Supreme Court has never ruled a treaty unconstitutional and so it won't rule that way on ACTA
Your first argument is silly. Every legislative and executive action is subject to judicial review. Just because the Judiciary reviews actions instead of previewing those actions doesn't mean that laws were valid and then became invalid when ruled unconstitutional. Actions ruled unconstitutional are retroactively voided, as though they carried no authority ab initio.
badinfluence
2010-09-09 02:50:37
Va|iums
2010-09-09 02:52:15
The Argumentalizer wrote:Wrong. The President (or agents) negotiates a treaty and then it is ratified by Congress, having been approved by the elected representatives of the districts and States, giving it the same weight as Law AND subject to the Supreme Court scrutiny. Neither treaty nor law nor executive order overrides the Constitution.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 02:57:00
It will likely pass in a decade.badinfluence wrote:Okay then, so enough about that. Will it pass? Will it be withheld? What does this mean to me?
Or is that too far into the future? What can I do to stop it?
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-09 03:16:17
Va|iums
2010-09-09 03:21:22
[EYE] Valar wrote:
@ Valiums - do you really believe this is about cracks? do you not see how this is the ground to a much larger idea? think for a minute what REALLY happens once this pass. What happens to the laws that now protect you, your freedom and your possessions? You honestly believe a law that allows governments full unwarranted searches into people's belongings and personal computers is really all about cracks? HA! even if it were that it could easily be used as ground for unspeakable crimes against humanity now made lawful.
the_big_cheese
2010-09-09 03:31:19
[EYE] Valar wrote:i don't know anything about the law but to think this shit will ever pass unchallenged and unnoticed is naive and delusional.
@BI - will this pass - of course not. too much to risk for the majority of moneymakers. the dying NWO fucktards society is the minority in the world nowadays and thank god for that.
It cannot be withheld because this shit will never ever pass.
Let me explain what this really means is in simple terms - some very bad men want to own and control you - they make up a facade international board and try to enforce rules that will restrict and control commerce and e-commerce throughout the whole world by all means possible. it means if now only half of your ass is owned by the government; once this goes live your entire ass is government property and we will all walk around inside a jail with no fences as big as the planet. no internet. no free media. you don't own your credit card, your bank account, your paid for house, car and so on. fuck iPods. this is far greater than busting kids on borders searching for illegal MP3s or w/e. this is in effect an attempt to create a single government that is an overlord above all laws and countries. and what a sad attempt.
@ Valiums - do you really believe this is about cracks? do you not see how this is the ground to a much larger idea? think for a minute what REALLY happens once this pass. What happens to the laws that now protect you, your freedom and your possessions? You honestly believe a law that allows governments full unwarranted searches into people's belongings and personal computers is really all about cracks? HA! even if it were that it could easily be used as ground for unspeakable crimes against humanity now made lawful.
Another thing - the notion of a "super-spyware" is nonsense. you cannot probe the internet without bottlenecking it and the Internet, if you understand the very term, cannot be bottlenecked. it is a fucking cloud!!! what this REALLY means is no more internet. to get their way they will need to erase the current way of doing things and turn the world wide web into something more along the lines of what was eDonkey and the old P2P system where different ips are connected to a main hub and back. that's it. closed loop. And, may i add, in order for THAT to happen you need to change the way all the systems in the world are built to something that is in non-existance in present time. The Internet IS all our computers. do you realize that? this is a thing that is impossible therefore a lie. an in-your-face lie.
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-09 03:35:30
Va|iums wrote:[EYE] Valar wrote:
@ Valiums - do you really believe this is about cracks? do you not see how this is the ground to a much larger idea? think for a minute what REALLY happens once this pass. What happens to the laws that now protect you, your freedom and your possessions? You honestly believe a law that allows governments full unwarranted searches into people's belongings and personal computers is really all about cracks? HA! even if it were that it could easily be used as ground for unspeakable crimes against humanity now made lawful.
You seem to mistake my argument, I'm completely with you. This is about something larger, are people here really naive enough to think the super spyware created by RIAA and being promoted to the FBI and NSA are just programs that check for "torrent programs"? Of course this treaty is really a larger gateway for international law gaining strength in concept and practicality, and a way to make a shit load of money.
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 03:37:17
You're making a fundamental error when you talk about the Supreme Court challenging anything. It's not the Supreme Court that challenges a law. It's ordinary, pissed off people that challenge laws. And of course there are laws that have never been challenged. Laws are only challenged if someone gets pissed off and challenges them. That's why we have a process called Judicial Review - not Judicial Preview. Very few treaties that the United States enters into are truly controversial, and so people normally don't get pissed off and challenge them. But I can guarantee you that the Supreme Court of the United States does not avoid cases involving either Executive Orders or Treaties on their docket. Justice Scalia loves them too much to let them slide through with a simple cert. denied.Va|iums wrote:Because no treaties have been formally challenged by the Supreme Court, it is reasonable to assume that if ACTA is passed that it too would be likely avoided by the Court.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 03:44:32
Oh I guess I missed the part of NAFTA being not controversial as a treaty, and has been challenged hundreds of times in court but judges are afraid to touch it. Also I never claimed challenges originate in the Supreme Court, they originate in much smaller courts, from much "smaller" people. You are incorrect assuming the Supreme Court doesn't invoke the writ of certiorari to chip away at Roe V. Wade on its more external policies such as invalidating 3rd term abortion to challenge earlier rulings simply to challenge law.MondaySunshine wrote:You're making a fundamental error when you talk about the Supreme Court challenging anything. It's not the Supreme Court that challenges a law. It's ordinary, pissed off people that challenge laws. And of course there are laws that have never been challenged. Laws are only challenged if someone gets pissed off and challenges them. That's why we have a process called Judicial Review - not Judicial Preview. Very few treaties that the United States enters into are truly controversial, and so people normally don't get pissed off and challenge them. But I can guarantee you that the Supreme Court of the United States does not avoid cases involving either Executive Orders or Treaties on their docket. Justice Scalia loves them too much to let them slide through with a simple cert. denied.Va|iums wrote:Because no treaties have been formally challenged by the Supreme Court, it is reasonable to assume that if ACTA is passed that it too would be likely avoided by the Court.
Paradox
2010-09-09 03:48:33
Neolinkster
2010-09-09 03:53:05
Your Cultural Image Response is lost on my Rebelling Amish Eyesthe_big_cheese wrote:
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 04:00:04
Va|iums
2010-09-09 04:02:54
What of laws never ruled unconstitutional that are unconstitutional simply because they Court has yet to get to these cases or never has (I.E. NAFTA)? The first say and the first supreme law is the act or treaty, later comes judicial review. We passed this point a long time ago, get out of the way of a more important debate old man.The Argumentalizer wrote:Although i'm unworthy, at least i know the Supreme Court RULES something to be unconstitutional, therefore becoming unconstitutional and no treaty or executive order overrides the Constitution.
And i can spell Empirical.
Valiums gets the full barrel again.
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 04:07:04
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-09 04:12:55
Intellectual property rights need to be enforced. i agree with you here. but that doesn't mean all i own is yours if i stole something from you. k? I should stand trial. not become a null.MondaySunshine wrote:Just because the MPAA and the RIAA want something does not make it wrong. Intellectual property rights need to be enforced. If you want to download all your music and your movies, you're breaking the law. Plain and simple. When someone tries to stop you from breaking the law, Valar breaks out into a huge paranoid rant about how his personal freedoms are being taken away. Because they're trying to stop him from breaking the law. This is the kind of ignorant, paranoid attitude fueling the tea party we all love so much.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 04:19:02
So you guys like the idea of laws that are typically enacted by the public and their representatives going to the hands of secret negotiators not elected by the public?The Argumentalizer wrote:I also completely agree with Holy that intellectual rights MUST be protected.
I have said so before here and received vitriol in return from the 4 channers here.
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 04:26:34
As I said before, you're equating a treaty on intellectual property rights with a one-world order. It's incredibly paranoid and makes you sound like a hillbilly retard. Come on. Stop watching Glen Beck and Keith Olberman.Va|iums wrote:The public has NO say in these murky, secretive executive agreements. Yeah everyone should welcome with open arms international regulators knocking on our doors and the public not getting a damn say in how we wanted it regulated, or who regulates. A one world government will come closer not by major or quick means, but by a slow and creeping means, and ACTA is a big step to one world law.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 04:29:54
Was that your retort to the public having no say in crafting digital intellectual property rights? ACTA isnt a conspiracy, international law isnt a conspiracy, its all right there. People like you will just pass it off as nutty conspiracy shit until the agreement is actually enacted, and as time goes on as the U.S. loses more power it will bow down to international regulators even more, as Presidents become puppets to China and other countries even more then they already are.MondaySunshine wrote:As I said before, you're equating a treaty on intellectual property rights with a one-world order. It's incredibly paranoid and makes you sound like a hillbilly retard. Come on. Stop watching Glen Beck and Keith Olberman.Va|iums wrote:The public has NO say in these murky, secretive executive agreements. Yeah everyone should welcome with open arms international regulators knocking on our doors and the public not getting a damn say in how we wanted it regulated, or who regulates. A one world government will come closer not by major or quick means, but by a slow and creeping means, and ACTA is a big step to one world law.
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-09 04:34:33
{Rx}Crowbar Ninja DJ Z3R0
2010-09-09 04:36:21
Adding because awesome.Neolinkster wrote:Your Cultural Image Response is lost on my Rebelling Amish Eyesthe_big_cheese wrote:
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 04:39:30
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-09 04:43:25
ouchies. someone not read the whole wikiACTA is about International agreement, not local enforcement.
Border searches
Potential border searches are covered by the "Border Measures" proposal of ACTA. As of February 2009, and according to University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, there is significant disagreement among countries on this topic: "Some countries are seeking the minimum rules, the removal of certain clauses, and a specific provision to put to rest fears of iPod searching customs officials by excluding personal baggage that contains goods of a non-commercial nature. The U.S. is pushing for broad provisions that cover import, export, and in-transit shipments."[41] Newspapers reported that the draft agreement would empower security officials at airports and other international borders to conduct random ex officio searches of laptops, MP3 players, and cellular phones for illegally downloaded or "ripped" music and movies. Travellers with infringing content would be subject to a fine and may have their devices confiscated or destroyed.[3][42]
In July 2008, the United States Department of Homeland Security disclosed that its border search policies allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents to conduct random searches of electronic devices for "information concerning terrorism, narcotics smuggling, and other national security matters; alien admissibility; contraband including child pornography, monetary instruments, and information in violation of copyright or trademark laws; and evidence of embargo violations or other import or export control laws."[43][44] US Senator Russell Feingold called the policies "truly alarming" and proposed to introduce legislation to require reasonable suspicion of illegality and to prohibit racial profiling.[43] The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously upheld the constitutionality of laptop searches without reasonable suspicion at border crossings.[43]
An ACTA fact sheet updated in November 2008, published by the European Commission, states:
ACTA is not designed to negatively affect consumers: the EU legislation (2003 Customs Regulation) has a de minimis clause that exempts travellers from checks if the infringing goods are not part of large scale traffic. EU customs, frequently confronted with traffics of drugs, weapons or people, do neither have the time nor the legal basis to look for a couple of pirated songs on an i-Pod music player or laptop computer, and there is no intention to change this.[1]
Criticism
Secrecy of negotiations
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) opposes ACTA, calling for more public spotlight on the proposed treaty.[45] Since May 2008 discussion papers and other documents relating to the negotiation of ACTA have been uploaded to Wikileaks,[34] and newspaper reports about the secret negotiations swiftly followed.[3][42][46]
In June 2008 Canadian academic Michael Geist writing for Copyright News argued that "Government Should Lift Veil on ACTA Secrecy" noting before documents leaked on the internet ACTA was shrouded in secrecy. Coverage of the documents by the Toronto Star "sparked widespread opposition as Canadians worry about the prospect of a trade deal that could lead to invasive searches of personal computers and increased surveillance of online activities." Geist argues that public disclosure of the draft ACTA treaty "might put an end to fears about iPod searching border guards" and that it "could focus attention on other key concerns including greater Internet service provider filtering of content, heightened liability for websites that link to allegedly infringing content, and diminished privacy for Internet users." Geist also argues that greater transparency would lead to a more inclusive process, highlighting that the ACTA negotiations have excluded both civil society groups as well as developing countries. Geist reports that "reports suggest that trade negotiators have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements for fear of word of the treaty's provisions leaking to the public." He argues that there is a need for "cooperation from all stakeholders to battle counterfeiting concerns" and that "an effective strategy requires broader participation and regular mechanisms for feedback".[47]
In November 2008 the European Commission responded to these allegations as follows:
It is alleged that the negotiations are undertaken under a veil of secrecy. This is not correct. For reasons of efficiency, it is only natural that intergovernmental negotiations dealing with issues that have an economic impact, do not take place in public and that negotiators are bound by a certain level of discretion. However, there has never been any intention to hide the fact that negotiations took place, or to conceal the ultimate objectives of the negotiations, the positions taken in European Commission Trade 5/6 the negotiations or even details on when and where these negotiations are taking place. The EU and other partners (US, Japan, Canada, etc.) announced their intention to start negotiations of ACTA on 23 October 2007, in well publicised press releases. Since then we have talked about ACTA on dozens of occasions, including at the European Parliament (INTA committee meetings), and in numerous well attended seminars. Commission organised a stakeholders' consultation meeting on 23 June in Brussels, open to all – industry and citizens and attended by more than 100 participants. US, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and other ACTA partners did the same.[1]
Threats to freedom and fundamental human rights
An open letter signed by many organizations, including Consumers International, EDRi (27 European civil rights and privacy NGOs), the Free Software Foundation (FSF), the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), ASIC (French trade association for web 2.0 companies), and the Free Knowledge Institute (FKI), states that "the current draft of ACTA would profoundly restrict the fundamental rights and freedoms of European citizens, most notably the freedom of expression and communication privacy."[48] The Free Software Foundation argues that ACTA will create a culture of surveillance and suspicion.[49] Aaron Shaw, Research Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University, argues that "ACTA would create unduly harsh legal standards that do not reflect contemporary principles of democratic government, free market exchange, or civil liberties. Even though the precise terms of ACTA remain undecided, the negotiants' preliminary documents reveal many troubling aspects of the proposed agreement" such as removing "legal safeguards that protect Internet Service Providers from liability for the actions of their subscribers" in effect giving ISPs no option but to comply with privacy invasions. Shaw further says that "[ACTA] would also facilitate privacy violations by trademark and copyright holders against private citizens suspected of infringement activities without any sort of legal due process".[50]
The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has published "Speak out against ACTA", stating that the ACTA threatens free software by creating a culture "in which the freedom that is required to produce free software is seen as dangerous and threatening rather than creative, innovative, and exciting."[49] ACTA would also require that existing ISP no longer host free software that can access copyrighted media; this would substantially affect many sites that offer free software or host software projects such as SourceForge. Specifically the FSF argues that ACTA will make it more difficult and expensive to distribute free software via file sharing and P2P technologies like BitTorrent, which are currently used to distribute large amounts of free software. The FSF also argues that ACTA will make it harder for users of free operating systems to play non-free media because DRM protected media would not be legally playable with free software.[49]
On 10 March 2010, the European Parliament adopted a resolution[51] criticizing the ACTA with 663 in favor of the resolution and 13 against, arguing that "in order to respect fundamental rights, such as the right to freedom of expression and the right to privacy" certain changes in the ACTA content and the process should be made.[51]
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 04:45:44
Uncle Rico
2010-09-09 05:00:32
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 05:17:10
It's a conspiracy! Counties want their legal systems to be similar so we can litigate successfully in foreign jurisdictions!Va|iums wrote:Was that your retort to the public having no say in crafting digital intellectual property rights? ACTA isnt a conspiracy, international law isnt a conspiracy, its all right there. People like you will just pass it off as nutty conspiracy shit until the agreement is actually enacted, and as time goes on as the U.S. loses more power it will bow down to international regulators even more, as Presidents become puppets to China and other countries even more then they already are.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 05:18:59
Deflection, sign of an intellectually weak mind. Do you have anything to say about the magnitude of this act being decided by non-elected negotiators? I guess all the international law in there that will eventually bind the United States is just conspiracy shit.MondaySunshine wrote:You're so cliche I almost fell asleep reading your retort. I think you're retarded for being paranoid. You think I'm ignorant because I don't buy into your worldview. Blah blah blah end of America blah blah blah Chinese people blah blah blah no more oral sex. It's a boring argument and I don't feel like playing that game.Va|iums wrote:Was that your retort to the public having no say in crafting digital intellectual property rights? ACTA isnt a conspiracy, international law isnt a conspiracy, its all right there. People like you will just pass it off as nutty conspiracy shit until the agreement is actually enacted, and as time goes on as the U.S. loses more power it will bow down to international regulators even more, as Presidents become puppets to China and other countries even more then they already are.
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 05:27:14
Look at you, resorting to ad hominem.Va|iums wrote:Deflection, sign of an intellectually weak mind. Do you have anything to say about the magnitude of this act being decided by non-elected negotiators? I guess all the international law in there that will eventually bind the United States is just conspiracy shit.
Yeah just deflect and move on.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 05:28:45
MondaySunshine wrote:Look at you, resorting to ad hominem.Va|iums wrote:Deflection, sign of an intellectually weak mind. Do you have anything to say about the magnitude of this act being decided by non-elected negotiators? I guess all the international law in there that will eventually bind the United States is just conspiracy shit.
Yeah just deflect and move on.
Elected officials have to approve a treaty. The treaty will become public domain. The United States is only bound if it chooses to be. End of conspiracy discussion. Every time someone tells you, "I don't think talking about this is worth our time," it isn't a deflection. It could be someone is used to this kind of argument, knows how it's gonna go, and doesn't feel like going through the motions. No matter what I say, you won't change your mind, because your worldview is fundamentally opposed to mine when it comes to the nature of the government. So why hash it all out? It's just two people yelling at the same time in a small room.
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 05:35:25
MondaySunshine wrote:It's just two people yelling at the same time in a small room.
Valiums - his elo rating is 1700 and he is disappoint.Va|iums wrote: Get your facts straight before entering a debate with me, I was almost excited at the prospect of a worthy opponent for debate but now....
son, I am dissapoint
{Rx}Crowbar Ninja DJ Z3R0
2010-09-09 05:39:37
re-quoting for great justiceUncle Rico wrote:ACTA has a secret section that states that anonymity will no longer be allowed while online. The new computers that connect to the new interwebs will require a blood sample, fingerprint, and will have a port to place your penis for analysis so that you can't lie about the size of your dick online anymore.
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 05:40:02
Va|iums
2010-09-09 05:56:45
This is an executive agreement, and he can circumvent congress and perhaps the courts. The limits of executive agreements have not been tested by the Supreme Court to this day, so far it has affirmed all executive agreements to be within the scope of executive power, unreviewable by courts.The Argumentalizer wrote:So is it an executive agreement or a treaty? Is there a double secret Presidential power that allows him to circumvent the Congress and the Court!??! Did you say it overrides the Constitution or not!?? Didn't you say laws/treaties can be unconstitutional and THEN the Court rules on it!?!?!
Didn't you say that the Treaty is amorphous, meaning whatever the executive wants, thereby defeating entirely the purpose of forging a stable international agreement in the first place!?!?
What the fuck are you blabbing about anyhow!?!?
You make no sense at all.
Your main problem is shooting too soon, spouting off with the wrong communication and then diverting the subject.
Debating with such people is like trying to catch a greased pig and then you can't barbecue em.
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 06:21:19
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 06:27:17
As I wrote earlier in this thread, this is wrong. Absolutely wrong. The Judiciary can review every action by Congress or the Executive Branch. And NO, the Supreme Court does NOT affirm executive orders. It REVIEWS them when they fall under its jurisdiction. And YES, the Supreme Court has, in fact, ruled an executive order unconstitutional and not within the power of the Executive Branch. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).Va|iums wrote:This is an executive agreement, and he can circumvent congress and perhaps the courts. The limits of executive agreements have not been tested by the Supreme Court to this day, so far it has affirmed all executive agreements to be within the scope of executive power, unreviewable by courts.
Paradox
2010-09-09 06:29:18
Dont tell NewGuy.....Uncle Rico wrote:ACTA has a secret section that states that anonymity will no longer be allowed while online. The new computers that connect to the new interwebs will require a blood sample, fingerprint, and will have a port to place your penis for analysis so that you can't lie about the size of your dick online anymore.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 06:31:25
This is not an executive order you ignorant dipshit. Executive orders and executive agreements are two entirely different spheres of executive influence. Yes holy it may shock you but some forms of executive priviledge are unreviewable by courts, if you don't know this by now you should stick to marriage law.MondaySunshine wrote:As I wrote earlier in this thread, this is wrong. Absolutely wrong. The Judiciary can review every action by Congress or the Executive Branch. And NO, the Supreme Court does NOT affirm executive orders. It REVIEWS them when they fall under its jurisdiction. And YES, the Supreme Court has, in fact, ruled an executive order unconstitutional and not within the power of the Executive Branch. See Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).Va|iums wrote:This is an executive agreement, and he can circumvent congress and perhaps the courts. The limits of executive agreements have not been tested by the Supreme Court to this day, so far it has affirmed all executive agreements to be within the scope of executive power, unreviewable by courts.
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 06:39:06
Valiums, some day rather soon the version of you that you see in your head is going to implode, and you're going to have to see what everyone else sees. And that's going to be a rather painful day for you.Va|iums wrote:This is not an executive order you ignorant dipshit.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 06:42:22
MondaySunshine wrote:Valiums, some day rather soon the version of you that you see in your head is going to implode, and you're going to have to see what everyone else sees. And that's going to be a rather painful day for you.Va|iums wrote:This is not an executive order you ignorant dipshit.
There's something a friend of mine loves to say - "Just because you think you're right doesn't mean you get to be a dick."
Constipator
2010-09-09 08:26:51
Mr. Nervous
2010-09-09 08:31:38
agreed.
DEFme
2010-09-09 08:34:49
Va|iums
2010-09-09 08:44:13
the_big_cheese
2010-09-09 08:45:18
Va|iums
2010-09-09 08:52:22
Edited TL;DRthe_big_cheese wrote:Ever heard of Reid v. Covert?
I haven't. This stuff bores the crap out of me.
I don't know how you guys do it. I'd rather write a 20 research page paper then read through this.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/h ... 01_ZO.html
Constipator
2010-09-09 09:05:09
Va|iums wrote:
Link
Va|iums
2010-09-09 09:07:19
Be sure to keep posting really crappy internet meme videos while we talk about how the United States functions. I'm sure as a popcorn popper you probably don't care how it does.Constipator wrote:Va|iums wrote:
Link
the_big_cheese
2010-09-09 09:24:31
Va|iums
2010-09-09 09:33:17
the_big_cheese wrote:Wait, looking back I see Holy already mentioned this case.
Ok, so the supreme court hasn't overruled a treaty. If you say so, I'm not gonna look it up...
They did overrule something in this case that wasn't technically a treaty, it was instead an executive agreement.
ATCA is an executive agreement.
But you said executive agreements have never in history been challenged...
This isn't even about the ATCA anymore it's about winning some stupid debate that Argumentalizer sparked.
Herp de Derp never listen to someone who's slept with 2 models and doesn't know how many gold teeth he has.
Also I fucking love movie popcorn. Gooodnight
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-09 10:32:29
MondaySunshine
2010-09-09 10:41:18
If you actually read what you're talking about, as I have, you would know that Cheese and I are both citing to Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), which actually abrogated both Reid v. Covert, 351 U.S. 487 (1955) and Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956). So, while you're right that the first Reid v. Covert case was withdrawn, no one in this thread has been talking about that case. We've all been talking about the second opinion.Va|iums wrote:Reid v Covert was withdrawn on a rehearing per Kinsella v. Krueger. Derp, herp.
The power of executive agreements remains unchecked after the withdrawl.
I look forward to your results of finding a treaty thats been ruled unconstitutional, so far your 0-1, about to be 0-2
Va|iums
2010-09-09 11:39:21
-_-MondaySunshine wrote:If you actually read what you're talking about, as I have, you would know that Cheese and I are both citing to Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957), which actually abrogated both Reid v. Covert, 351 U.S. 487 (1955) and Kinsella v. Krueger, 351 U.S. 470 (1956). So, while you're right that the first Reid v. Covert case was withdrawn, no one in this thread has been talking about that case. We've all been talking about the second opinion.Va|iums wrote:Reid v Covert was withdrawn on a rehearing per Kinsella v. Krueger. Derp, herp.
The power of executive agreements remains unchecked after the withdrawl.
I look forward to your results of finding a treaty thats been ruled unconstitutional, so far your 0-1, about to be 0-2
So, by my calculations, you're 0-1, Cheese's lead.
Ko-Tao
2010-09-09 12:12:43
Only a matter of time until theres a top secret section stating that- for a certain percentage of your post-tax income- the penis port can be retrofitted to provide some of that Oh Yeah, OH YEAH!!!Uncle Rico wrote:ACTA has a secret section that states that anonymity will no longer be allowed while online. The new computers that connect to the new interwebs will require a blood sample, fingerprint, and will have a port to place your penis for analysis so that you can't lie about the size of your dick online anymore.
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 15:10:03
CellarDweller
2010-09-09 17:33:04
the thought of valiums watching beck makes me chortle.MondaySunshine wrote:As I said before, you're equating a treaty on intellectual property rights with a one-world order. It's incredibly paranoid and makes you sound like a hillbilly retard. Come on. Stop watching Glen Beck and Keith Olberman.Va|iums wrote:The public has NO say in these murky, secretive executive agreements. Yeah everyone should welcome with open arms international regulators knocking on our doors and the public not getting a damn say in how we wanted it regulated, or who regulates. A one world government will come closer not by major or quick means, but by a slow and creeping means, and ACTA is a big step to one world law.
the_big_cheese
2010-09-09 18:36:30
So being challenged then withdrawn = never being challenged? Ok Val.Va|iums wrote:the_big_cheese wrote:Wait, looking back I see Holy already mentioned this case.
Ok, so the supreme court hasn't overruled a treaty. If you say so, I'm not gonna look it up...
They did overrule something in this case that wasn't technically a treaty, it was instead an executive agreement.
ATCA is an executive agreement.
But you said executive agreements have never in history been challenged...
This isn't even about the ATCA anymore it's about winning some stupid debate that Argumentalizer sparked.
Herp de Derp never listen to someone who's slept with 2 models and doesn't know how many gold teeth he has.
Also I fucking love movie popcorn. Gooodnight
Reid v Covert was withdrawn on a rehearing per Kinsella v. Krueger. Derp, herp.
The power of executive agreements remains unchecked after the withdrawl.
I look forward to your results of finding a treaty thats been ruled unconstitutional, so far your 0-1, about to be 0-2
BTW it's ACTA, not ATCA KWIM?
Va|iums
2010-09-09 19:30:49
http://gizmodo.com/5517850/riaampaa-wan ... omaticallyThe Argumentalizer wrote: A White House secret War against Torrent!? Ridiculous.
The notion is just really stupid. A lot of HYPERBOLE (which you are prone to) and nonsense. It lacks common sense.
Your arguments lack common sense. They also lack logic..
the_big_cheese
2010-09-09 20:15:19
Only in a legal sense, certainly not in a historic sense, which you were implying.Va|iums wrote:@ cheese, the Supreme Court withdrawing its own verdict is equivalent to it never happening. No true form of the Court exercising limits on executive agreements has been achieved. Reid v Covert is an odd case that not only took back what it said but reclassified what was clearly an executive agreement to a treaty for reasons completely baffling.
Va|iums
2010-09-09 20:20:45
Please quote where I claim executive agreements have never been brought to court before. The only thing I claimed was that executive agreements have not been tested in limits by the Supreme Court which is true. I don't have to change my wording if I never said it, I'll wait while you find the quote.the_big_cheese wrote:Only in a legal sense, certainly not in a historic sense, which you were implying.Va|iums wrote:@ cheese, the Supreme Court withdrawing its own verdict is equivalent to it never happening. No true form of the Court exercising limits on executive agreements has been achieved. Reid v Covert is an odd case that not only took back what it said but reclassified what was clearly an executive agreement to a treaty for reasons completely baffling.
Reid v Covert is just like Plessy v. Ferguson in the fact that it shows what the federal government is capable of and willing to do under the right circumstances.
Whether limits have been achieved or not is besides the point. You were saying that ACTA wouldn't be challenged because executive agreements have never been brought before the court in the past. This has obviously been proved false. You can keep changing your wording around so that you're technically "still right about everything", but there's really no way to debate that so I give up.
the_big_cheese
2010-09-09 20:40:27
Va|iums
2010-09-09 21:14:10
There never was that quote that's why.the_big_cheese wrote:Half of your posts in this thread have been edited and you want me to find a quote thats no longer there.
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-09 23:41:34
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-10 02:34:49
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-10 03:47:42
Va|iums
2010-09-10 03:55:25
Paradox
2010-09-10 06:42:48
Ko-Tao
2010-09-10 08:30:56
Uncle Rico
2010-09-10 16:57:40
BASTARDS! I FUCKING KNEW IT!Ko-Tao wrote:Secret meetings about establishing a new world order...
Pretty damn obvious whos pulling the strings.
Pernicious
2010-09-10 17:53:12
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-11 00:55:18
Uncle Rico
2010-09-11 01:37:41
That was just a fictional story to try the bring us all to the truth of the lizards. The writer of that episode was murdered shortly there after. His killer was never found, but we all know who was responsible.The Argumentalizer wrote:I thought Kirk took care of him and his race by mixing gunpowder from native materials and firing a rock into his papermache head!?!?
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-11 04:09:14
Panic
2010-09-11 06:11:20
Ko-Tao
2010-09-11 06:15:55
MondaySunshine
2010-09-11 06:35:57
Va|iums
2010-09-11 07:02:54
The Argumentalizer
2010-09-11 07:09:43
Panic
2010-09-11 07:51:42
provost
2010-09-11 18:44:38
Blasphemy
2010-09-11 22:48:59
lizard peoplePernicious wrote:Aliens?
Reptilian aliens!
Va|iums
2010-09-12 23:40:42
You know after re-reading this entire thread for the first time I hope you don't actually think Holy's first page post you labeled as a "flawless victory" was a victory at all. His case citations of Youngstown vs Sheet and Reid V. Covert have nothing to do with executive agreements.provost wrote:2 wins in a row, gg
Blasphemy
2010-09-12 23:47:28
Va|iums wrote:You know after re-reading this entire thread for the first time I hope you don't actually think Holy's first page post you labeled as a "flawless victory" was a victory at all. His case citations of Youngstown vs Sheet and Reid V. Covert have nothing to do with executive agreements.provost wrote:2 wins in a row, gg
/meh you're a Canadian though, I don't expect you to understand the intricacies of U.S. law just as I wouldnt pretend to understand provincial kingdom law in Canada. I had to get that in there, for one last time that this is an executive agreement, and people should educate themselves on what ACTA means to us. If you don't want to or don't care so be it, but at least true patriots will have made an effort to understand it.
Va|iums
2010-09-12 23:52:44
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-13 00:02:20
Uncle Rico
2010-09-13 00:33:12
David Icke would disagree. http://www.davidicke.com/articles/repti ... ainmenu-43[EYE] Valar wrote:defo has nothing whatsoever with Lizard people
Ko-Tao
2010-09-13 01:31:37
Except for the fact that they control the world.[EYE] Valar wrote:[...]defo has nothing whatsoever with Lizard people[...]
[EYE] Valar
2010-09-13 04:16:37
I don't subscribe to a lot he's saying. he got me all through the bloodlines and power elites but lost me with the fantastic connections. I love fantasy and fiction but i'm afraid the Lizardrama lost me. In any case, NWO, regardless of some people making the connection with Lizards (lawl) has nothing to do with science fiction. It concerns very much alive and real people and has been documented for years and years.Uncle Rico wrote:David Icke would disagree. http://www.davidicke.com/articles/repti ... ainmenu-43[EYE] Valar wrote:defo has nothing whatsoever with Lizard people