Stupid WTO-related question

Nate tha\\\' Great · #1 10-06-2006, 02:13 PM

Let's say, miracle of miracles, the US decided that it wants to be in compliance with the WTO so that Antigua doensn't flood the market with pirated Full House DVDs.

Does the President have the Constitutional power to strike a law that is inconsistent with international treaty? How does this work?

Richas · #2 10-06-2006, 03:00 PM

There would need to be new legislation either
1) Banning all gambling in the US (then the moral argument applies and there is no US industry to protect)
or
2) Allowing US citizens to place similar bets with foreign companies as they can place at home (This is not just online horses and lotteries but B&M operations too) and allowing US banks to deal with legal foreign suppliers of such services.

Unlike most WTO unfair competition discussions this isn't complicated stuff of hidden subsidies this is a 100% ban on foreign suppliers, just like saying no cars allowed from Japan. They have to lift the ban on financial transactions to comply and they will also need to revisit the wire act which was the original Antigua case.

Wake up CALL · #3 10-06-2006, 04:11 PM

[ QUOTE ]
They have to lift the ban on financial transactions to comply and they will also need to revisit the wire act which was the original Antigua case.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken about this, the Wire Act applies equally to American companies as to foreign entities. I don't think the Wire Act as written and as enforced will need to be changed in regards to the original WTO Antigua objection.

adios · #4 10-06-2006, 04:17 PM

Actually I think the U.S. would be more likely to come up with a definitive law that stated interstate betting on horses via the internet is illegal as one example. Put another way, enact law(s) that eliminate all of the carveouts that are deemed protectionist,

iron81 · #5 10-06-2006, 04:22 PM

The WTO does not have the power to get rid of US laws by itself and I am reasonably sure that no court would rule the IG ban invalid based on the WTO. Therefore, new legislation would have to be passed to unwind the IG ban. Bush has proven that he is willing to ignore laws, but that's more of a Politics forum debate.

We've had a bunch of threads on this, but my understanding is that Antigua won its case and the US is essentially out of compliance with the WTO ruling in the Antigua case. I guess we'll get further clarification in November.

damaniac · #6 10-06-2006, 04:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO does not have the power to get rid of US laws by itself and I am reasonably sure that no court would rule the IG ban invalid based on the WTO. Therefore, new legislation would have to be passed to unwind the IG ban. Bush has proven that he is willing to ignore laws, but that's more of a Politics forum debate. We've had a bunch of threads on this, but my understanding is that Antigua won its case and the US is essentially out of compliance with the WTO ruling in the Antigua case. I guess we'll get further clarification in November.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, so it is a matter of the sanctions being permitted/imposed being painful enough that the US complies. This on top of actually getting this litigated and winning. Best case, this all works out, but it still will take a long time.

crzylgs · #7 10-06-2006, 04:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They have to lift the ban on financial transactions to comply and they will also need to revisit the wire act which was the original Antigua case.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are mistaken about this, the Wire Act applies equally to American companies as to foreign entities. I don't think the Wire Act as written and as enforced will need to be changed in regards to the original WTO Antigua objection.

[/ QUOTE ]

He is absolutely not mistaken about this. The WTO Apellate body ruling specifically mentions the Wire Act as an offending statute.

www.antiguawto.com has a detailed history of the conflict.

adios · #8 10-06-2006, 04:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The WTO does not have the power to get rid of US laws by itself and I am reasonably sure that no court would rule the IG ban invalid based on the WTO.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say they did?

I wrote:

Actually I think the U.S. would be more likely to come up with a definitive law that stated interstate betting on horses via the internet is illegal as one example. Put another way, enact law(s) that eliminate all of the carveouts that are deemed protectionist,

Nope don't think I did say the WTO has the power to get rid of U.S. laws. Fairly certain that it's clear that I at least implied that changing U.S. laws is in the purveyance of the U.S. government.

JPFisher55 · #9 10-06-2006, 04:43 PM

Actually, the US Constitution calls international treaties and the provisions of the Constitution the supreme law of the land, above even federal statutes.
I am not sure that the WTO is a formal treaty ratified by the US Senate.
Also, if it is, I am not sure if a federal court will strike down this law under the supremacy clause, but you never know.

Wynton · #10 10-06-2006, 04:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Does the President have the Constitutional power to strike a law that is inconsistent with international treaty? How does this work?

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no constitutional authority for the president to strike down any law. He may decline to sign a law or he may decline to enforce a law. But once it is on the books, he cannot take it upon himself to "strike it."