The latest Wikileaks drop is about the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement, and its probable impact on "State Owned Enterprises." (SOE)
The Analysis of Leaked TPPA Paper for Ministers' Guidance on SOEs, by Professor Jane Kelsey, Faculty of Law, University of Auckland, New Zealand, makes specific reference to public broadcasters as SOEs that could be included under the TPP, and subject to a variety of new, yet undefined, restrictions.
That could mean the CBC in Canada, and likely NPR and PBS in the US. In particular, it's possible that the TPP might insist that governments not provide support (such as funding or protections) for these, and other essential public services.
From the report:
It looks like SOEs are not allowed to get government support or non-commercial assistance – such as capital injections, subsidies, grants, cheaper access to finance, government guarantees and access to land, premises or facilities on preferential terms – if that causes "adverse effects" to another TPPA country. That kind of support is often essential for SOEs that provide public functions that are not proftable or are even loss-making.
{snip} ... it suggests that a postal service, public telecommunications provider or state-owned bank that receives financial support from the government to deliver services into poor areas for social reasons could be challenged by a courier firm, satellite operator or internet bank from another country that says the support is adversely affecting it and hence its country's interests.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by CortoMaltese on Friday July 31 2015, @02:27PM
But seriously even the thought of having a treaty which the people can't review (and even some cases, their representatives) should become unbearable to a democracy loving people, I will be baffled if this passes in America. I mean who would you justify taking public services just because.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Friday July 31 2015, @03:23PM
> I will be baffled if this passes in America.
You have a great deal of faith in the average American.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 31 2015, @05:48PM
The average american has NOTHING to do with the TPP treaty.
Nothing.
No Leverage.
None.
The most we can hope for is the largely corrupt senate will see too many of their favorite oxes gored by this thing and fail to ratify it.
The post office example is particularly interesting. The Constitution, explicitly gave Congress the power “To establish Post Offices and post Roads” in Article I, Section 8. Now this runs the risk of being undone by a treaty?
There are many instances [tenthamendmentcenter.com] where treaties expanded federal powers. Even in violation of portions of the constitution.
It is an untested theory whether a Treaty can Override the Constitution. The supreme court claims the right to declare treaties (or parts thereof) unconstitutional, but have NEVER ever done so.
Short answer is that if 2/3ds of the senate approves the TPP it becomes law. Its not the American People that are on the hot seat here.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @06:03PM
Incorrect. We know of the existence of the TPP, and all Americans should be paying attention and demanding that politicians vote against it, lest they be voted out.
It is an untested theory whether a Treaty can Override the Constitution.
The constitution is the highest law of the land and the government derives all of its authority from it, so no, it can't. If the judges aren't corrupt fools, they'll agree.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 31 2015, @07:35PM
The constitution is the highest law of the land and the government derives all of its authority from it, so no, it can't.
go read the link i posted. This has already happened in historical times.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 31 2015, @08:28PM
Then they're traitors who violated the constitution and need to hang from the gallows. Elites who violate the law are not unheard of; far from it. All you can say here is that corrupt elites (judges) cover for other corrupt elites, not that it's not unconstitutional.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday July 31 2015, @07:17PM
In the run-up to the American Revolution people started tarring and feathering legislators and other government officials that meant to impose the King's will upon the Colonies. It may be time to revive the practice. However, in a nod to 21st Century America we probably ought to make it a reality show.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday July 31 2015, @09:43PM
Agreed, You bring the tar, I'll bring a sack of feathers, we'll see which one of us gets tackled to the ground and cuffed first.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday July 31 2015, @06:09PM
I won't be baffled. We already know our system is incurably corrupt, this will be just one more example.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Saturday August 01 2015, @09:07AM
It sounds like it can't NOT pass, in that Congress doesn't vote on accepting it, but rather votes on whether to reject it or not, and then Obama will veto their rejection [because it's his treaty].