ACTA

badinfluence

2010-09-08 21:28:51

Anyone know where this currently is? I'm curious of the chances of this passing. I read that it was still in bill form, but I'd like to know more info if anyone has it. I'm looking in your direction, Valiums and MondaySunshine.

For anyone that doesn't know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Count ... _Agreement

MondaySunshine

2010-09-08 23:07:56

ACTA is something that the Bush administration started pushing for in 2006. It's a treaty that nations can sign on to (they don't have to) that will set up standard international laws governing intellectual property (like file-sharing music and movies).

One of the problems that US media companies are running into is that its very difficult to prosecute international file-sharers because US laws don't always correspond with foreign laws on the subject of intellectual property. So the treaty is an attempt to make international laws about intellectual property that the treaty-signing nations can use to prosecute file-sharing infringement.

It's still being negotiated and hasn't been enacted by any countries yet. It's controversial because the negotiations and potential drafts of the treaty have been kept super-secret. It's highly unusual to have a treaty like this be completely hidden from the public. We'll see it eventually, though, if the negotiations are successful and the treaty comes before Congress to sign it. In my opinion, its just the MPAA and the RIAA putting their lobbying dollars to work.

Even if it passes, what difference will it have, practically speaking? The Pirate Bay and other major file-sharing ISP's are in nations that don't sign treaties like these, and who are opposed to this kind of attempt to stop file-sharing. So who knows. We'll have to wait and see.

Va|iums

2010-09-08 23:56:56

Essentially to be more specific then Holy ACTA is an executive agreement that was begun under the Bush administration, specifically birthed in Japan by extreme pressure from Sony Corp. and RIAA. Under the Obama admin negotiotians have stalled for the time being, with several countries including the U.S. delaying specifics and in general keeping it secret.

Essentially under an executive agreement it is an informal treaty that depends on the President who crafts it, one day the executive agreement can dissapear, one day it could enforced to its full scripture, and one day it could be enacted and just completely *non-enforced* depending on the President. Be aware that both executive agreements and treaties automatically override the U.S. Constitution.

The important thing to watch is how ACTA defines the act of "ripping", as the negotiations stand now the general act of "ripping" is being veraciously and liberally defined by pressure from RIAA. Ripping which could become internationally illegal means even the transferring music to ipod can be classified as "ripping" as RIAA currently defines it and is pressuring ACTA negotiators to define it as. Right now though the biggest laws being crafted in ACTA of course are in the direction of ISP's, putting extreme pressure on them to restrict torrenters and the like. Will ACTA be finished under the Obama admin? Probably not in his first term, if he wins in second term he could just continue to delay like he is now and shove it to a President more willing to engage in ACTA.


One more thing; treaties in general are subject to the discretion of locality law more then anything (as in city governments) and even if this ridiculous treaty is passed it is unlikely you will see localities enforce this garbage in general to its full extent.

Uncle Rico

2010-09-09 00:04:28

MondaySunshine wrote:Bush administration...
...kept super-secret
That's about right.
Va|iums wrote:Be aware that both executive agreements and treaties automatically override the U.S. Constitution...
...President more willing to engage in ACTA.
Fucking Palin. :x

Va|iums

2010-09-09 00:07:03

lmao Palin, she won't win shit.

Obama will win a second term because the economy will recover and with it his image. All eyes should be on Romney or Rick Perry in 2016, Palin isn't even liked anymore in the polls.

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 00:26:43

"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.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 00:37:53

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.
Once again you make me do face furls instead of facerolls.

Treaties do override the U.S. Constitution unless the court systems say the treaty is unconstitutional, but so far no treaty in the history of the United States has been ruled unconstitutional, so the basis of my judgement is empiricle and quantitative instead of qualitative. It is similar in the way a federal act passed by Congress can nullify parts of the Constitution, it then becomes the Supreme Courts responsibility to determine whether the federal act or treaty is out of the bounds of the Constitution.

So if a treaty was passed today banning firearms, it would in fact supersede the Constitution until the courts rule otherwise.

{Rx}Crowbar Ninja DJ Z3R0

2010-09-09 00:39:13

ohboyherewego


inb4 debate

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 00:43:22

Va|iums wrote:Be aware that both executive agreements and treaties automatically override the U.S. Constitution.
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.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1, 17 (1957).

No act by Congress or order by the president can ever "override" the Constitution. Even if Congress or the Executive Branch passes a law or makes an order you think is "unconstitutional," unless the Supreme Court agrees, you're wrong.

See also Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952). "The President's power, if any, to issue executive orders must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself."

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 00:56:49

I am just curious where Valiums gets the notion that Treaties can override the Constitution.
It's a ridiculous and false statement.

Even Lincoln's suspension of Habeus Gorpus duringthe Civil War was subject to SC scrutiny.
And ALL treaties are ratified by the peoples and states representatives and subject to challenge.
------------------
"but so far no treaty in the history of the United States has been ruled unconstitutional, so the basis of my judgement is empiricle and quantitative instead of qualitative."

What the fuck does this mean!?! Your judgment is EMPIRICLE amd QUANTITATIVE!?!?!?!

Empirical. And what is Quantitative about it!?!? Since it is nonsense, there isn't much quantifying going on.

provost

2010-09-09 01:22:00

Image

Sacrifist

2010-09-09 01:35:21

provost wrote:Image
awesome sauce

Va|iums

2010-09-09 02:04:12

MondaySunshine wrote:
Va|iums wrote:Be aware that both executive agreements and treaties automatically override the U.S. Constitution.
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.
Let's take the orders of proceedings.

Treaty is signed by President.

Treaty goes into law, treaty has same weight as a federal statute, treaty/statute are the supreme law of the land until the Court reviews it.

Treaty is reviewed by the Court

Treaty overturned/ruled unconstitutional which has yet to happen in history, prove me wrong.


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. Technically a treaty clearly violating the U.S. Constitution if never challenged in court could remain law, and thus overrides the Constitution for a time until judicial review is finally done.

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 02:19:40

Va|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.
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.

Your second argument made one of my eyes raise higher than the other and I furrowed my brow. Because it's silly. The Supreme Court has affirmed again and again that they have the right to void a treaty. Just because they haven't used it does not mean that they will not.

Ghost Dog_TSGK

2010-09-09 02:21:56

I'll stop downloading movies when hollywood stops using 3D as an excuse to make dog shit on screen, too many bad ACTAS as well.

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-09 02:33:12

another bullshit NWO front. this has red flags flying all over the place.
NWO failed on their empty Terror threats front now it's intellectual properties infringements. yeah right, give me a break.
thank god for giving us a pair of eyes and common sense.

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 02:34:33

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 02:44:54

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.
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.

If a treaty bans firearms (all forms) and is signed tomorrow and no one challenges it, it remains supreme law of the land regardless of whether it is constitutional or not because it is not available for judicial review because no one has brought suit to it. All the technicality aside is the broader point that executive agreements and treaties are typically avoided by the courts in so order not to touch the dangerous realm of international law binding to ourselves. 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, and if its text is vague enough could hold itself against the litmus test of the court. That is the broader concern of ACTA, not all this technical bullshit. The other concern is that this is an executive agreement, even more vague and disturbing trend then treaties.

badinfluence

2010-09-09 02:50:37

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?

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.

It is ratified by the Senate, not the congress, then formally signed by the President. You'renot even the worthy opponent in this debate, at least Holy is making things interesting.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 02:57:00

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?
It will likely pass in a decade.

What will it mean for you? If RIAA gets its ways any act of "ripping" PERIOD will become illegal. ISP's will be intensely pressured to crack down on major seeders, and will be pressured to cut service if you found to be downloading illegally. ACTA can pave the way for the RIAA and NSA to partner into making "super-spyware" to check whether or not you are doing this, RIAA is actually in the process of lobbying the FBI and NSA to make these programs in partnership as we speak.

The effectiveness of ACTA will depend on the President, he may or may not direct federal enforcement agencies to pursue and prosecute ACTA violations. Vote in a President who you think will be less likely to direct its agencies to do as such is my only advice if you want to stop it.

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-09 03:16:17

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.

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.

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.

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.
Image

[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.

my post edited. added more to what i had to say.
very true. as you can see, there is no "super-spyware" in place nor will there even be one. what their real aim is is to control the internet (which is again, utter bullshit) by placing probes inside your ISP servers. there is no other way of doing it; once live, it can marginally probe your activity and sort of police it. what a joke.

Now, why this will NEVER be withheld? 2 reasons - A. you cannot really police the internet. cannot be done. been tried and as time goes by not only this becomes a shinning fact but also the general public becomes more and more advanced in its usage and understanding of the way things work. B. because eCommerce is by far the fastest growing entity in the world today. it's the largest market and it's power cannot be challenged. this is a sad attempt and obviously will crash and burn before it's airborne. if we could do a background check on the attendee list in these "secret" meetings i bet we'd find the good old faces from the good old days. the IllumiNaughty Pigvomits.

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 03:37:17

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.
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.

On a deeper level, I disagree with the general tenor of both Valiums and Valar's responses. 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 03:44:32

MondaySunshine wrote:
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.
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.
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.

In fact much of the time the writ of certiorari is done just to challenge previous rulings by the Court, to overturn them. As to your second point, the law is in our hands, I disagree with your tenor of people "violating" a general concept of intellectual property rights.

Paradox

2010-09-09 03:48:33

lol @ verbal tennis match between 2 law students with quips from the audience thrown in.

good stuff, even edjamacational (intentionally misspelled, spelling nazis)

:popcorn:

Carry on

Neolinkster

2010-09-09 03:53:05

the_big_cheese wrote:Image
Your Cultural Image Response is lost on my Rebelling Amish Eyes :P

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 04:00:04

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.

NAFTA is not controversial. Only loons on the Left are trying to make that perception. It's just a trade agreement and beneficial.
And Valiums, don't be a weasel. No one likes a weasel.
You make statements and then you backtrack and modify them, as if that is an argument or debate. You have done it three times so far.
When caught, you pretend that isn't what you said or meant. A moving Target.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 04:02:54

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.
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

2010-09-09 04:07:04

They are not unconstitutional tell the Supreme Court says so. If they were, there would be no need for the Supreme Court.
Valiums would show up and say "Why this is unconstitutional!" and the SC would just say, "duuuh OK!"

Your arguments are LAME.

"This Treaty overrides the Constitution"!

No it doesn't.

Also,your assertion that all this is super secret, like it will remain so. You insinuate a Treaty done behind closed doors in secret, that then overrides the Constitution. All of it false.
You pipe in like an expert on the Treaty while claiming it is super secret!?!?!?
You must be a Fly on the Wall.
I picture you and Ace having long discussions with Alex Jones about conspiracy this and that.

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.

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-09 04:12:55

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.
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.
The standard argument against NWO theories and other popularly known as Conspiracy Theories is that it's paranoid and ignorant. Not much of an argument here is there. Disqualification of other people for having different opinions than yours doesn't work. The same approach was used by your old administration after 9/11.
You need to answer claims by arguing something. anything. try something else other than paranoia and ignorance :)
I don't disqualify your post based on the fact you're a law student therefore clearly cannot hold any anti establishment beliefs.

And back on topic - Intellectual property rights need to be enforced - very true. How? I may not have an answer for that but i sure as hell know the right way isn't Help Yourself To All My Stuff Solution.
More:
If you want to download all your music and your movies, you're breaking the law - wrong. you know perfectly well there are means of paying for intellectul properties and then downloading it. perfectly legal. the illegal part is when there is no transaction or approval by the owner / author. ouch. the "download" guideline just became a bit more complicated didn't it? It's about usage not rights. the problematic part is the USAGE!! the Rights part is already covered. remember? World Intellectual Property Organization?
More:
When someone tries to stop you from breaking the law... - we should be seeing the problem here by now. HOW do "we" know i'm breaking the law? HOW do "we" stop them from breaking the law? IS the Help Yourself To All My Stuff Solution really the best "we" could come up with?

What i'm saying is simple - The way they think of reinforcing the law is Fascist and even if their intentions are super pure the ground this sets for Fascist laws is all too obvious. now, are we arguing about whether or not there are Fascists in the world? Does calling something Evil or never mind Evil - Dangerous - make me Paranoid or ignorant? Does it really?

Va|iums

2010-09-09 04:19:02

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.
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 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.

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 04:26:34

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.
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

2010-09-09 04:29:54

MondaySunshine wrote:
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.
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.
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.

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-09 04:34:33

ah fuck it. the world is flat and earth is the center of creation. can't you see the sun rise and set everyday? can't you see it's revolving US? lol.

{Rx}Crowbar Ninja DJ Z3R0

2010-09-09 04:36:21

Neolinkster wrote:
the_big_cheese wrote:Image
Your Cultural Image Response is lost on my Rebelling Amish Eyes :P
Adding because awesome.

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsaving the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me "V".

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 04:39:30

Interesting you bring up China, since we lose billions in stolen and counterfeit technology. A large portion of Chinese computers run on pirated Windows. They have markets that sell blatant counterfeits and copies of CDs like they have copyright permission.

China steal billions from us every year.
For all you know, ACTA may be aimed at China.

The tussy over Dling could be a giant canard. Much to do about nothing.
ACTA is about International agreement, not local enforcement.

Also: If you haven't noticed, Gubbmint is DUMB and incapable of keeping anything secret.
Even the details of ACTA have been leaked.
Even Black Ops overseas by SpecWar are written about in the New York Times.
You are a wacky paranoid conspiracy dude.

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-09 04:43:25

ACTA is about International agreement, not local enforcement.
ouchies. someone not read the whole wiki
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

How dare you publish the details of the secret ACTA Treaty at the U!

Don't you know it's supposed to be secret!

Uncle Rico

2010-09-09 05:00:32

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.

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 05:17:10

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.
It's a conspiracy! Counties want their legal systems to be similar so we can litigate successfully in foreign jurisdictions!

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.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 05:18:59

MondaySunshine wrote:
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.
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.
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.

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 05:27:14

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.
Look at you, resorting to ad hominem.

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.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 05:28:45

MondaySunshine wrote:
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.
Look at you, resorting to ad hominem.

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.

This is an executive agreement not a treaty that does not require congressional/senatorial approval and does not become public domain, only domain of the executives. 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

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 05:35:25

MondaySunshine wrote:It's just two people yelling at the same time in a small room.
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
Valiums - his elo rating is 1700 and he is disappoint.

{Rx}Crowbar Ninja DJ Z3R0

2010-09-09 05:39:37

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.
re-quoting for great justice

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 05:40:02

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.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 05:56:45

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.
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.

Yes I said laws/treaties can be unconstitutional because they are different then executive agreements and are inherently reviewable. You kept arguing about treaties, so I argued about treaties with you instead of what this is, an executive agreement. Your brain is going to explode at this point, you remind of me of a ferbie that got too excited and won't turn the fuck off. Go take a nap or drink a beer before it becomes too much for you.

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 06:21:19

You are full of shit. There is no such thing.

Goodnight. Better luck next time.
You have been duly pawned, tonight.

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 06:27:17

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.
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).

In this thread you have continually said things that either (a) make no sense or (b) are plain wrong. And yet when I provide clear examples of how both (a) and (b) are true, you ignore what I say and say the same retarded nonsense again 2 pages later.

Paradox

2010-09-09 06:29:18

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.
Dont tell NewGuy.....

Va|iums

2010-09-09 06:31:25

MondaySunshine wrote:
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.
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).
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.

@ impala here http://www.americanforeignrelations.com ... ments.html

I feel like I'm speaking to windmills at this point... its truly a sad day for me. I'm beginning to question to whether even use my law degree for the good of the people, why not just do a couple of monumental good things then just rape people for votes and money and live like a king. It seems people won't know the difference at the end of day.

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 06:39:06

Va|iums wrote:This is not an executive order you ignorant dipshit.
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.

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."

Va|iums

2010-09-09 06:42:22

MondaySunshine wrote:
Va|iums wrote:This is not an executive order you ignorant dipshit.
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.

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."

I can spell it out for you then

Executive Order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_ ... ed_States) deal with domestic agencies and how the executive wishes to direct them

Executive Agreement http://www.americanforeignrelations.com ... ments.html deal with foreign policy negotiations between two (or more) heads of states on an informal agreement that is loosely binding, but is enforceable.

Constipator

2010-09-09 08:26:51

I believe many of us would like to do what happens from 2:30-2:45 to valiums

Link

Mr. Nervous

2010-09-09 08:31:38

Constipator wrote:I believe many of us would like to do what happens from 2:30-2:45 to valiums

Link
agreed.

DEFme

2010-09-09 08:34:49

Holy's father taught him good.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 08:44:13

Constipator wrote:I believe many of us would like to do what happens from 2:30-2:45 to valiums

Link

So lets see. I clear up the mistakes Holy made in classifying why ACTA isn't a treaty, nor executive order but an executive agreement, prove impala wrong that executive agreements exist, educate you guys on potential loss of rights and you come back with a shitty cartoon?

You mustve had a bad day popping popcorn at the movie theater at minimum wage for teenagers Con. Seriously though if people don't want the truth, I won't provide it anymore. I think people like to be lied to, don't like to see how their rights are being transformed and warped and have a simple picture of things so everything seems OK. I'm done w/ the community, have fun with Impala educating you about your rights.

the_big_cheese

2010-09-09 08:45:18

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

Va|iums

2010-09-09 08:52:22

the_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
Edited TL;DR


Just read the last two posts of mine of this page for a more clear understanding of Reid V. Covert

Constipator

2010-09-09 09:05:09

Va|iums wrote:
Link

Va|iums

2010-09-09 09:07:19

Constipator wrote:
Va|iums wrote:
Link
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.

the_big_cheese

2010-09-09 09:24:31

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

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

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?

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-09 10:32:29

All arguments about problematic legislations here and elsewhere are never countered by an argument. Not Once and not a word.
The problem i think stems from the fact people generally have trouble looking at things in a broader scope. Here's a possible simplification:

If you and I are partnering up for a project and we set rules and time frame and I one day disappear / end up delivering something entirely different than that agreed upon and you reproach me for it and my reaction is one of the following:

Ignore you
Claim you're Paranoid
Dismiss you for Ignorance

You would probably not get the feeling i'm sincere since i won't even humor you with an explanation or debate with you. I would then look ever the more guilty.
Now, here's the broader scope -
When something on a national or international scale is happening and some people are uncomfortable with it and want to get some clarifications / question it - YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THEM AS IGNORING THEM OR DISMISSING THEM AND THEIR ARGUMENTS AS PARANOID AND IGNORANT ONLY AMPLIFIES HOW PROBLEMATIC THE SUBJECT AND THE PEOPLE BEHIND IT ARE.

I dare you to argue anything. something that is not outside this debate like my mental state or level of IQ.
Leave aside the judiciary facet for now. Question is NOT WHETHER OR NOT PROTECTING INTELLECTUAL RIGHTS AND ENFORCING LAWS PROTECTING THEM IS CALLED FOR - we all agree it's called for and that stealing is stealing period. so:

Are the MEANS as described in the wiki BI posted are agreeable in your eyes?

Don't derail. answer the question.

MondaySunshine

2010-09-09 10:41:18

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
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.

So, by my calculations, you're 0-1, Cheese's lead.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 11:39:21

MondaySunshine wrote:
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
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.

So, by my calculations, you're 0-1, Cheese's lead.
-_-


If you are referring to Reid V Covert of 57' then you should know the Court did not declare the treaty/executive agreement unconstitutional, the Court in its 57' decision only declared its future ability to do so in regard to treaties. Further more 57' Reid V. Covert refers explicitly to a treaty and not an executive agreement. Being as such the limitations of a defined "executive agreement" were not addressed in 57' Reid V Covert.

TL;DR By my count Cheese is still 0-1, no executive agreement or treaty has been ruled unconstitutional or checked in power. The 56' Reid V. Covert was the first instance of a treaty/executive agreement being ruled unconstitutional but was withdrawn, the 57' decision did not rule it unconstitutional but only reserved the right to do so sometime in the future if it wished.

Ko-Tao

2010-09-09 12:12:43

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.
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!!!

And theyll have half the worlds population enslaved within 24 hours of its passing. :|

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 15:10:03

I never said executive agreements didn't exist. ACTA is an international Treaty countries can sign on to, if it is ever passed. Right no, it is nothing.
ACTA is not a singular secret agreement to support another country during wartime, as the example suggests.

Every bit of ACTA will be dealt with above board by Congress and the WH. Your nonsense is just paranoia.
There is no reason on earth for an American President to be doing secret deals concerning FILE SHARING.
Why would they get involved in that!?!?!
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.
Every time you are corrected in your faulty communication, you divert to another different point, launch an ad hominem, or make a StrawMan argument.

Since ACTA is currently nothing at all, all this conniption is perfunctory.
Don't get your panties in a wad dude.

CellarDweller

2010-09-09 17:33:04

MondaySunshine wrote:
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.
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.
the thought of valiums watching beck makes me chortle.

the_big_cheese

2010-09-09 18:36:30

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?
So being challenged then withdrawn = never being challenged? Ok Val.
You keep contradicting yourself because you're taking your assumptions and calling them absolute facts.
Also I lose a point for accepting what you said about treaties? lol

Va|iums

2010-09-09 19:30:49

The 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..
http://gizmodo.com/5517850/riaampaa-wan ... omatically

@ 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.

I believe the reason the Court did was pressure from the Eisenhower administration and plees not to infringe on the powers of executive agreements. All of the technical arguing aside at least its been a relatively healthy debate besides the few idiots posting internet meme's.

the_big_cheese

2010-09-09 20:15:19

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.
Only in a legal sense, certainly not in a historic sense, which you were implying.
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.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 20:20:45

the_big_cheese wrote:
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.
Only in a legal sense, certainly not in a historic sense, which you were implying.
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.
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

2010-09-09 20:40:27

Half of your posts in this thread have been edited and you want me to find a quote thats no longer there.

Va|iums

2010-09-09 21:14:10

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.
There never was that quote that's why.

The only post I edited recently was the one at top which never touched on executive agreements reaching court level. The rest were edited to add personal insults to people like Constipator, because you know...you gotta mix things up with personal insults because expounding the differences between spheres of executive influence gets tedious.

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-09 23:41:34

Valium's convenient switch in argument,from overriding the Constitution and ACTA being an international Treaty that means anything the executive wants, to some kind of lame "Executive Agreement" point, is a lot of nonsense.

An Executive Agreement covers almost anything negotiated or forged by the President. I guess Val;iums point is "OMFG!!! The President is the Executive and actually has some POWER!!!!!", which shouldn't be news to anyone. The US President is the most powerful position on earth.

Executive Agreements are LEGION. They run from mundane legalese in trade, major trade inroads, secret deals during war (as Commander) (Iran Contra, Potsdam...), and extreme measures during dire situations (Maritial Law).

Most Executive agreements are handled by Congress. Most of the time, it is part of a treaty ratified.

Valium's seems to be equating ACTA with internment of Japanese during WWII or the suspension of Habeus Corpus by Lincoln, which is, of course, nonsense.
His paranoia leads him to associate Executive Agreement with the most secretive and powerful sweeping orders during Emergencies and War.

ACTA is a mundane Anti-Counterfeiting/Copyright attempt to align the definitions and prosecutions across International lines.

It has nothing to do with the FBI busting down BI's door and taking his Computer.

If Valiums had more than a plebiscites history of Government and experience in how almost nothing goes long secretively and certainly not unchallenged in some way, he might not fail to Hyperbole and Wiggle Worm false arguments at every turn, like some conspiracy nut.

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-10 02:34:49

1) Impala, go now and read the FULL article on Wiki which BI posted the link to. do it. read the whole thing and see there are some alarming elements in ACTA and it's handling.
2) Do me a favor bro, quti waving the conspiracy nuts flag. there are nuts. period. not every person claiming there is something going on which we don't know the full truth about is a nut. Maybe the easiest argument coming from people who are arguing against Conspiracy Theories is to throw their interlocutor on the same wagon with all the real nuts. easy but not true.
Here's a fun fact, just to show different views thrive in different cultures: In Israel we have an extreme left wing epidemic in the media and general public. If a Minister or a high office / high rank person is suspected of any type of inappropriate conduct they would be taken to trial and the media would be all over it like vultures on carrions. If IDF during the last operation in Gaza was suspected to have used illegal weapons against the population - it was all over the fucking news night and day. to the point you'd sit there watching the news and ask yourself "what are these people thinking? don't they know they are actually hurting their own country by going public about it without getting the facts straight first?". but that's extreme left wing purists and i digress. I'm mentioning that because looking at how things are done in the US i can't help but smile at the fact that far worse shit goes on and no one stands trial. nothing's wrong. it's all good. I see that as a state of mind.
3) Your argument that there is nothing secretive or that nothing secretive can remain secretive for long is false. you as veteran know that perfectly well regardless of your political views. CIA arming Bin Laden in the 80s you mean to tell me was on national news? Bush family being board of directors in the Carlyle Group was on national news at any point before 9/11? let's admit to the facts. there are many secrets. both evil and benign. at the end of the day all high level positions are held by people. you and me. imperfect human beings with beliefs and agendas.
4) The fact that Money and Power are married and Money wears the pants around the house is for some odd reason always pushed aside by some people, usually right wing extremists.
*i'm BTW not left wing. not a nut. and I hope you don't think i'm ignorant :sketchy:

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-10 03:47:42

I don't believe any of it except the Left Wing is a threat not only to Israel's survival but to Western Civ as a whole.

The CIA didn't have anything to do with the Arab contingent in the Afghan War.

The CIA funded and trained the Afghans through Pakistan, while the Mujahdeen foreign fighters were funded and trained by Saudi Arabia.
It's a fact and is stated by Bob Baer, ME Station Chief in two of his books.

All this talk of secrecy, about a treaty concluded and ratified and joined by no one on earth, the details of which are on the net in Wikipedia, is not something i concern myself with.
What Treaty is negotiated in Public!?!?

I am sure it's not a NWO type Bilderburg bit of nonsense.
I believe there is a lot of silly Hyperbole surrounding this issue.

I said LIKE a conspiracy... i have spoken to Valiums and know he is full of conspiracy theories, most all of which are bunk.

Va|iums

2010-09-10 03:55:25

Dead thread is dead.

Paradox

2010-09-10 06:42:48

:rip:

Ko-Tao

2010-09-10 08:30:56

Secret meetings about establishing a new world order...

Pretty damn obvious whos pulling the strings.



Image

Uncle Rico

2010-09-10 16:57:40

Ko-Tao wrote:Secret meetings about establishing a new world order...

Pretty damn obvious whos pulling the strings.



Image
BASTARDS! I FUCKING KNEW IT!

Pernicious

2010-09-10 17:53:12

Aliens?
Reptilian aliens!

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-11 00:55:18

I thought Kirk took care of him and his race by mixing gunpowder from native materials and firing a rock into his papermache head!?!?

Uncle Rico

2010-09-11 01:37:41

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!?!?
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.
484px-Dinosauroid.jpg
484px-Dinosauroid.jpg (97.22 KiB) Viewed 360 times

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-11 04:09:14

That explains this:
Attachments
GreenSkinnedAlienBabe.jpg
GreenSkinnedAlienBabe.jpg (77.37 KiB) Viewed 341 times

Panic

2010-09-11 06:11:20

Image

Krull >

Ko-Tao

2010-09-11 06:15:55

Krull ftw!

MondaySunshine

2010-09-11 06:35:57

Image

Va|iums

2010-09-11 07:02:54

LMFAO


I have to just sit back and admit that's hilarious... BTW what is an executive treaty? No such thing :cry:

The Argumentalizer

2010-09-11 07:09:43

That is frickin funny.

Panic

2010-09-11 07:51:42

flawless victory

provost

2010-09-11 18:44:38

Image

2 wins in a row, gg

Blasphemy

2010-09-11 22:48:59

Pernicious wrote:Aliens?
Reptilian aliens!
lizard people

Image

Va|iums

2010-09-12 23:40:42

provost wrote:2 wins in a row, gg
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.

/meh your 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.

Blasphemy

2010-09-12 23:47:28

Va|iums wrote:
provost wrote:2 wins in a row, gg
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.

/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.
:P

Va|iums

2010-09-12 23:52:44

LEWL

fuck it I'm definately installing google chrome now brb

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-13 00:02:20

i dunno about all the law talk but posting lizard pictures makes the topic a whole lot clearer lmao
NWO = a proven fact backed with so much hard evidence it's hilarious. defo has nothing whatsoever with Lizard people. but i admit the pics were quite amusing :deadhorse:
and Chrome rules :thumbsup:

Uncle Rico

2010-09-13 00:33:12

[EYE] Valar wrote:defo has nothing whatsoever with Lizard people
David Icke would disagree. http://www.davidicke.com/articles/repti ... ainmenu-43

Ko-Tao

2010-09-13 01:31:37

[EYE] Valar wrote:[...]defo has nothing whatsoever with Lizard people[...]
Except for the fact that they control the world.

[EYE] Valar

2010-09-13 04:16:37

Uncle Rico wrote:
[EYE] Valar wrote:defo has nothing whatsoever with Lizard people
David Icke would disagree. http://www.davidicke.com/articles/repti ... ainmenu-43
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.

If you YouTube any of the following terms you'd very quickly come across related vids about any of the following terms :shock: :

NWO
UFO
Reptilians
Ghost
Aliens
Demons
Conspiracy
M-Theory / String Theory
Quantum

The fact some nuts think these are all related does not automatically make it everyone else's opinion.
The only true thread you can run through all the above is they are all either verging the uncommon or haven't been Empirically proven - neither of which make them true or false but i can see how a childish / paranoid minds make the connection :)