The judge ruled it unconstitutional. I don't believe that even the TPP can override such a ruling (assuming it is not ultimately overturned by a higher court).

Under these treaties it doesn't matter if a law is based on the constitution or not. If the trade courts rule that a country's law violates the treaty the country will be punished via trade protectionisms such as quotas or import taxes.

Actually, it does. The Supreme Court has held that all "acts of Congress" must be in accordance with the Constitution. Ratifying a treaty is an act of Congress. Thus, if Congress ratifies a treaty that imposes requirements on the US that violate the US Constitution, the court can hold that ratification to be invalid.

Thus far, no actual treaty has ever been invalidated; the closest is an executive agreement in Reid v. Covert: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reid_v._Covert

I think the point the parent was trying to make is that what's legal in the US doesn't make a whit of difference to how other countries treat us.

In other words, we can't force other countries to not all agree to raise tariffs on goods that they import from the US. The constitution doesn't matter, because they are foreign governments. Our laws have no bearing there.

If that wasn't the case then any country could use their laws to force people in other countries to do whatever. Certain activities would be both required and banned at the same time. Here in the US it's illegal to coerce a voter, and in Australia voting is mandatory. There's no way to reconcile those two laws.

"To boost the British economy I'd tax all foreigners living abroad."

That's BS, I have to say. Trade agreements can't bulldoze constitutional freedoms.

"Quotas". In English, we use a plain S to denote a plural.

Treaties actually become the 'supreme law of the land' but where and how they can override other things is a bit murky. I don't think they'll exactly let them sign away Consitutional rights via treaty, but sometimes I wonder. Anyhow, there's a good review of the (complicated) subject here: http://harvardlawreview.org/2014/01/limits-on-the-treaty-pow...

Honestly, I would think it more likely that private contracts, particularly NDAs, would be used to prevent undercover investigations. You can (more or less) sign away your First Amendment rights, after all.

That's not true, you can NEVER sign away your first amendment right. Your first amendment right protects you against government, not private action. If you violate an NDA, your employer has the right to fire you and to sue you for damages, but the government will NOT have the right to jail you. Though, in some circumstances people have been jailed for violating court order to not disclose information, but they are jailed for contempt of court, NOT the disclosure it self.

> Though, in some circumstances people have been jailed for violating court order to not disclose information, but they are jailed for contempt of court, NOT the disclosure it self.

So, if I understand this properly, you're saying that the government can't make you sign away your first amendment rights, but they can order you not to speak ('disclose information') and then jail you?

Join the military, then see how far your First Amendment rights extend.

But (if I understand correctly) in the military, you aren't subject to civilian law. You're subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilian law does not apply to you.

(Shrug) The assertion was that there is no way for a citizen to sign away their First Amendment rights. The UCMJ is a valid counterexample.

That's not exactly true, your freedom of speech rights are limited by UCMJ, especially under Articles 82, 88, and 134, but not eliminated. You still have a right to attend peaceful demonstrations and such. It is, however, shameful how we treat military men and women in this country. As far as I am concerned, they should have just as many rights as any one else.

Also, it's not really a counterexample, because you do not sign away your rights when you sign the enlistment papers, you loose some of your rights by simply being part of the military. People who where drafted back in the 60s also lost had their rights limited, even though they did not voluntarily sign any papers or agreed to anything.

Further, this is an act of the government, and not a civil contract. No CIVIL CONTRACT can take away ANY of your constitutional rights.

It's not that you lose them outright, but they can be deliberately waived in certain contexts. Here's an example:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/judge-nursing-student-wa...

> But (if I understand correctly) in the military, you aren't subject to civilian law. You're subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and civilian law does not apply to you.

Civilian law generally applies to active duty military personnel the same as to anyone else (though some laws have express exceptions or alternate provisions for military personnel), and the UCMJ even provides for the delivery of military personnel accused of violations of law by the civil authorities to be delivered to those authorities. [UCMJ Art. 14, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 814]

More to the point upthread, members of the military retain First Amendment rights, and military regulations have been struck down for violating the First Amendment.

There has been a few cases of military "whistleblowers" contacting their Congressional representative. Trying to restrict such contact I'm almost certain is a violation of the UCMJ. Contacting the Army/Navy/AF/DoD-OIG is another method of contact that is protected by Federal law.

Its not unheard of for senior officers' careers to be ended after a negative OIG report.

TPP or TTIP don't allow any jailing. It's just not their jurisdiction. In fact, both the European Union and the US have strict opinions on free speech, and it is unlikely that the EU would try to force US legislators to put away more of their own people (the US is already very good at that, thank you), even if it had any means to do so....

This is an interesting question. But do you have any source for the proposition that TPP or TTIP actually says this?

There is plenty of stuff in these treaties that I don't like, but this particular claim does not strike me as very plausible. But I could be wrong!

There's plenty of stuff rumored to be in TPP or TTIP which people don't like. Also there is a lot of confusion about initial/temporary negotiation positions and what's actually going to be in there.