I'm rather baffled by this line, from the end of the article:
> The agreement does not require congressional approval.
How can that possibly be true?
EDIT: Some detail. The U.S. Constitution says that treaties made "under the Authority of the United States" are "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI). But it also says (Article II) that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...."
That last bit about the Senate would seem to contradict the above statement. Or perhaps ACTA does not require Senate confirmation, but then it isn't the supreme law of the land.
Speaking of the Constitution, the paragraph just after that which you've cited from Article VI is interesting:
"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."
My interpretation, which seems to be supported by [1]: no treaty may expand the powers of government beyond those enumerated by the Constitution. If it is shown to (which seems likely given al the secrecy), it becomes unenforceable and we learn who to recall from office.
> The agreement does not require congressional approval.
How can that possibly be true?
EDIT: Some detail. The U.S. Constitution says that treaties made "under the Authority of the United States" are "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI). But it also says (Article II) that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; ...."
That last bit about the Senate would seem to contradict the above statement. Or perhaps ACTA does not require Senate confirmation, but then it isn't the supreme law of the land.