6 ms·
The judge ruled it unconstitutional. I don't believe that even the TPP can override such a ruling (assuming it is not ultimately overturned by a higher court).
by RexRollman 11y ago
The judge ruled it unconstitutional. I don't believe that even the TPP can override such a ruling (assuming it is not ultimately overturned by a higher court).
- guelo 11y agoUnder these treaties it doesn't matter if a law is based on the constitution or not. If the trade courts rule that a country's law violates the treaty the country will be punished via trade protectionisms such as quotas or import taxes.
- coldpie 11y ago"Quotas". In English, we use a plain S to denote a plural.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- vonmoltke 11y agoActually, it does. The Supreme Court has held that all "acts of Congress" must be in accordance with the Constitution. Ratifying a treaty is an act of Congress. Thus, if Congress ratifies a treaty that imposes requirements on the US that violate the US Constitution, the court can hold that ratification to be invalid. Thus far, no actual treaty has ever been invalidated; the closest is an executive agreement in Reid v. Covert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert
- msandford 11y agoI think the point the parent was trying to make is that what's legal in the US doesn't make a whit of difference to how other countries treat us. In other words, we can't force other countries to not all agree to raise tariffs on goods that they import from the US. The constitution doesn't matter, because they are foreign governments. Our laws have no bearing there. If that wasn't the case then any country could use their laws to force people in other countries to do whatever. Certain activities would be both required and banned at the same time. Here in the US it's illegal to coerce a voter, and in Australia voting is mandatory. There's no way to reconcile those two laws.
- Rayearth 11y ago"To boost the British economy I'd tax all foreigners living abroad."
- bayesianhorse 11y agoThat's BS, I have to say. Trade agreements can't bulldoze constitutional freedoms.
- Natsu 11y agoTreaties actually become the 'supreme law of the land' but where and how they can override other things is a bit murky. I don't think they'll exactly let them sign away Consitutional rights via treaty, but sometimes I wonder. Anyhow, there's a good review of the (complicated) subject here: http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-power/ http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-pow... Honestly, I would think it more likely that private contracts, particularly NDAs, would be used to prevent undercover investigations. You can (more or less) sign away your First Amendment rights, after all.
- x0054 11y agoThat's not true, you can NEVER sign away your first amendment right. Your first amendment right protects you against government, not private action. If you violate an NDA, your employer has the right to fire you and to sue you for damages, but the government will NOT have the right to jail you. Though, in some circumstances people have been jailed for violating court order to not disclose information, but they are jailed for contempt of court, NOT the disclosure it self.
- CamperBob2 11y agoJoin the military, then see how far your First Amendment rights extend.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoBut (if I understand correctly) in the military, you aren't subject to civilian law. You're subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilian law does not apply to you.
- CamperBob2 11y ago(Shrug) The assertion was that there is no way for a citizen to sign away their First Amendment rights. The UCMJ is a valid counterexample.