Apologists here for Obama’s use of executive orders point out the other recent presidents who’ve also overreached their use of executive orders. This makes the abuses more important, not less, as this has been an on-going deviation from the Constitutional limits of the president since at least FDR in the 30s. An executive branch run wild makes the abuses of kings and dictators almost inevitable. That is why it must be reined in; that’s why the framers constructed limited powers in their document. On the otherhand, there’s clear evidence that all of Obama & co.’s study of the Constitution must have been focuses on tactics to skirt its limitations.

White House bypasses Senate to ink agreement that could allow Chinese companies to demand ISPs remove web content in US with no legal oversight.

Months before the debate about Internet censorship raged as SOPA and PIPA dominated the concerns of web users, President Obama signed an international treaty that would allow companies in China or any other country in the world to demand ISPs remove web content in the US with no legal oversight whatsoever.

The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement was signed by Obama on October 1 2011, yet is currently the subject of a White House petition demanding Senators be forced to ratify the treaty. The White House has circumvented the necessity to have the treaty confirmed by lawmakers by presenting it an as “executive agreement,” although legal scholars have highlighted the dubious nature of this characterization.

The hacktivist group Anonymousattacked and took offline the Federal Trade Commission’s website yesterday in protest against the treaty, which was also the subject of demonstrations across major cities in Poland, a country set to sign the agreement today.

Under the provisions of ACTA, copyright holders will be granted sweeping direct powers to demand ISPs remove material from the Internet on a whim. Whereas ISPs normally are only forced to remove content after a court order, all legal oversight will be abolished, a precedent that will apply globally, rendering the treaty worse in its potential scope for abuse than SOPA or PIPA.

A country known for its enforcement of harsh Internet censorship policies like China could demand under the treaty that an ISP in the United States remove content or terminate a website on its server altogether. As we have seen from the enforcement of similar copyright policies in the US, websites are sometimes targeted for no justifiable reason.

The groups pushing the treaty also want to empower copyright holders with the ability to demand that users who violate intellectual property rights (with no legal process) have their Internet connections terminated, a punishment that could only ever be properly enforced by the creation of an individual Internet ID card for every web user, a system that is already in the works.

“The same industry rightsholder groups that support the creation of ACTA have also called for mandatory network-level filtering by Internet Service Providers and for Internet Service Providers to terminate citizens’ Internet connection on repeat allegation of copyright infringement (the “Three Strikes” /Graduated Response) so there is reason to believe that ACTA will seek to increase intermediary liability and require these things of Internet Service Providers,” reports the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The treaty will also mandate that ISPs disclose personal user information to the copyright holder, while providing authorities across the globe with broader powers to search laptops and Internet-capable devices at border checkpoints.

In presenting ACTA as an “international agreement” rather than a treaty, the Obama administration managed to circumvent the legislative process and avoid having to get Senate approval, amethod questioned by Senator Wyden.

“That said, even if Obama has declared ACTA an executive agreement (while those in Europe insist that it’s a binding treaty), there is a very real Constitutional question here: can it actually be an executive agreement?” asks TechDirt. “The law is clear that the only things that can be covered by executive agreements are things that involve items that are solely under the President’s mandate. That is, you can’t sign an executive agreement that impacts the things Congress has control over. But here’s the thing: intellectual property, in Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, is an issue given to Congress, not the President. Thus, there’s a pretty strong argument that the president legally cannot sign any intellectual property agreements as an executive agreement and, instead, must submit them to the Senate.”.

26 European Union member states along with the EU itself are set to sign the treaty at a ceremony today in Tokyo. Other countries wishing to sign the agreement have until May 2013 to do so.

Critics are urging those concerned about Obama’s decision to sign the document with no legislative oversight to demand the Senate be forced to ratify the treaty.

*********************

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a regular fill-in host for The Alex Jones Show and Infowars Nightly News.

Source: Prison Planet.

*Taken from the Examiner. Written by Kimberly Dvorak.

A newly leaked amnesty-memo inside Department of Homeland Security reveals a way to grant amnesty without Congress debating comprehensive immigration reform or casting a vote.

This is the third inside memo to be leaked to the media regarding the Obama Administration’s intent to legalize 20 million illegal aliens currently residing in America unlawfully. The first memos came out of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) agencies- both put together likely tools that could be used to make an amnesty end run around lawmakers.

The American Spectator recovered the latest document from DHS and reports some dubious plans that insiders say went all the way up to the DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano.

“If going forward with a larger registration program is not possible,” the memo reads, “we could propose a narrowly-tailored registration program for individuals eligible for relief under the DREAM Act, AgJOBS, or other specifically designed subcategories.”

For those who don’t believe the Obama Administration’s intensions about back-door amnesty language contained in the DREAM Act asks for targeted amnesty for children under the age of 35 who attend college or join the armed services. The kicker with the DREAM Act is the Democratic leadership is placing this legislation inside a defense spending bill set to hit the Senate floor next week.

Included in the DHS memo are details about political ramifications of a backdoor amnesty push. The memo outlines a beginning phase that would legalize illegal immigrants through DHS without comprehensive immigration legislation. The DHS memo also reads that by “using administrative measures to sidestep the current state of Congressional gridlock and inertia,” would move the new policy forward by documenting those here illegally.

Measures DHS would implement include registering, fingerprinting, and screening the illegal immigrant population-excluding those illegal aliens who have committed a felony- but DHS envisions handing out eligible illegal immigrants work permits, a process that would lead to their legal status.

However, the memo acknowledges that sometime down the road Congress would have to pass legislation to extend permanent legal residence.

This newly recovered memo is consistent with inside memos from the USCIS and ICE, a key difference is the concern about Congress’ reaction to being circumvented. “The Secretary would face criticism that she is abdicating her charge to enforce the immigration laws. Internal complaints of this type from career DHS officers are likely and may also be used in the press to bolster the criticism.”

In fact the USCIS has been looking for ways to grant amnesty without Congress for sometime and their memo outlined the method of skirting lawmakers. According to USCIS some illegal aliens would be granted resident status by simply handing them “green cards.”

“In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, CIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations,” the memo read, two of the four who wrote the controversial memo were President Obama appointees including the head of USCIS Alejandro N. Mayorkas.