Germany delays signing ACTA treaty as opposition mounts.

Germany delays signing ACTA treaty as opposition mounts.(RS).
Opposition has been mounting worldwide to the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which would creative a new set of international standards for enforcing so-called “intellectual property” rights. Many opponents see the provisions of the agreement as threatening the integrity of the Internet by promoting censorship and criminalizing everyday online activities.
It was reported on Friday that Germany has delayed its signing of the agreement, joining Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Latvia in displaying doubts about the measure. The Polish government’s decision was particularly noteworthy for having been prompted in part by street protests and online attacks by Anonymous.
The treaty has been gaining increasing attention since a recent wave of online protests in the U.S. against the Stop Online Piracy Act, to which ACTA has many similarities. An additional source of outrage against ACTA, however, is that it was negotiated in secret.  The current focus of the protests in in Europe, where the European Parliament is due to vote on the measure in June. Even in the United States, however, an anti-ACTA petition at whitehouse.gov currently has over 42,000 signatures.
In signing ACTA, President Barack Obama has again leapfrogged over the U.S. Constitution, critics charge. The Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) was signed by the United States and several other countries on October 1 with little fanfare.But even if we let Obama bask in his delusion of signing an “executive agreement,” Constitutional experts say that he still does not have a right to sign it in the matter of copyright and patent laws. In fact, U.S. Constitutional scholars Jack Goldsmith and Larry Lessig said:  The president has no independent constitutional authority over intellectual property or communications policy, and there is no long historical practice of making sole executive agreements in this area. To the contrary, the Constitution gives primary authority over these matters to Congress, which it charges with making laws that regulate foreign commerce and intellectual property.
Using this same argument, Senator Ron Wyden (D) from Oregon has been hammering the Obama administration for months for an explanation as to why he bypassed Congress. Finally, the administration issued a response saying, essentially, that the President could sign this treaty because it would not change U.S. law.Wyden then requested a Congressional Research Service’s Analysis of ACTA and found that it may change U.S.law. (What a surprise). The problem with ACTA, like so many bills Obama signs, is that is is so riddled with vague language that its meaning hinges on one's interpretation. As it stands now, I’m convinced that Obama knowingly bypassed Congress and the United States Constitution to sign a treaty that will help to destroy our First Amendment right of free speech. (Thus his "concern" over the problems with SOPA, earlier this month, was just a charade). How long are we going to let him get away with this?Read the full story here and here.