Laws Broken: Avengers - Sokovia Accords Illegal? (One Marvelous Scene x LegalEagle)

Video Statistics and Information

Video
Captions Word Cloud
Reddit Comments

Yeah I absolutely love this video! I have been wondering about the Sokovia Accords forever.

👍︎︎ 7 👤︎︎ u/nandovmovies 📅︎︎ May 07 2019 🗫︎ replies

I honestly have no idea where the Wiki version of the Sokovia Accords comes from or how accurate they are to the movie, but if that’s really the version in the movie, then I have absolutely no clue how so many countries approved of it and why they’re even a debate when they so clearly violate the Constitutional rights of any enhanced people. Isn’t it funny, then, that the enhanced members of Team Iron Man; Black Panther, Vision, and Spider-Man, all have ways of getting out of the accords, either by being royalty, a machine, or having a secret identity? Meanwhile the enhanced members of Team Cap; Captain America, Winter Soldier, and Scarlet Witch, all would be fully subject to the accords? Not to mention that the team against the Accords is led by an enhanced individual, while the team for them is led by someone who’s not enhanced? It’s almost like a certain group of people are fighting for their rights against others who would benefit from them not having those rights.

👍︎︎ 1 👤︎︎ u/451857Ah 📅︎︎ May 17 2019 🗫︎ replies
Captions
- Do you see the beauty of it? My swift and terrible sword, and the Earth will crack with the weight of your failure. When the dust settles, the only thing living in this world, will be metal. In 2015, the world reeled from attacks from enhanced individuals. It was not prepared for the tragedy in Sokovia, under the leadership of Ultron, a robot army descended on the peaceful town of Novigrad, Sokovia, a province known for its wheat production and fine woolen goods. In a battle that pitted sibling against sibling, the otherwise sleepy town of Novigrad was levitated in to the sky. Hundreds of thousands of Sokovians perished, and the world was forever changed. But in the wake of the tragedy, countries around the world rallied around a common cause, in response to the Sokovian tragedy and the supervillian Ultron, the world knew what it needed, to regulate enhanced individuals. That is legally problematic. (guitar playing) Hey LegalEagles, it's time to think like a lawyer. Welcome back to Laws Broken, where an attorney destroys your favorite childhood movies, by showing you how illegal everything is, because everything is illegal. Today we're talking about the Sokovia Accords from "Captain America's Civil War" and the rest of the "Avengers" movies. We're going to pretend that it is an actual binding, legal document and analyze it in far, far, too much detail. For better or worse, in the wake of the Ultron disaster, countries worldwide, through the United Nations, signed the Sokovia Accords. The Sokovia Accords are a phone book sized set of regulations aimed squarely at the Avengers personally, and the organization S.H.E.I.L.D. It seeks to limit the so-called enhanced individuals, including registration components, monitoring components, and imprisonment components. I'm using the version of the Sokovia Accords found at the Marvel Cinematic Universe Fandom Wiki, which you can find at the link below. Importantly, some of the provisions only apply to signatories of the Sokovia Accords, while other provisions apply to all enhanced individuals, whether they sign or not. This is quite the constitutional problem. So because this is obviously the most important legal analysis that I could possibly be doing right now, I put together 10 reasons why the Sokovia Accords raise constitutional questions. But first, I want to talk about the legal landscape in general, specifically whether the Sokovia Accords would even be U.S. law and number two, what would the legal framework be for dealing with enhanced individuals in the absence of the Sokovia Accords? So first, let's talk about the Accords in general. An accord is not a U.S. law, I assume what the Marvel writers meant here is that the Sokovia Accords are an international treaty that the U.S. has signed. But just because 177 countries signed an agreement, doesn't actually make it law in the United States. In the case of a treaty, the Senate has to approve the treaty by a 2/3 vote under Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution. And there are tons of examples of treaties that the U.S. has signed but not actually ratified, that includes the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, and the Treaty of Versailles, basically the U.S. is still in World War I. But for the sake of argument, let's assume that the U.S. Senate has, in fact, ratified the Sokovia Accords, it's more fun that way, in any event, even when treaties are ratified, they cannot violate the U.S. Constitution, and, in fact, this was an issue when the U.S. adopted NATO, because it was thought that the Mutual Defense Treaty would violate Congress' right to declare war. But before we get to analyzing the actual Sokovia Accords themselves, we have to examine the status quo ex ante of U.S. criminal law and tort law. Captain America chafes at the restrictions of the Sokovia Accords, but it's not like in the absence of the Accords, he'd be allowed to operate domestically in the United States. Vigilantes are illegal, as we discussed in the video on the "Dark Knight" and all the laws that Batman broke. You can't just go around getting in to fights, even for a good cause. The justification of self-defense generally doesn't apply when you intentionally put yourself in harm's way. And all of these enhanced individuals are using deadly force, which almost always carries with it a duty to retreat if you are able to do so. Of course, U.S. law doesn't necessarily apply to the Avenger's actions in Sokovia and other foreign countries. But the fact of the matter is, they are often operating domestically where U.S. law does apply. Don't even get me started about issues of federalism because even if enhanced individuals were allowed, under the Sokovia Accords on the federal level, there's still all the state laws that prohibit their actions. And there's no way federal law would preempt garden variety state laws about criminal conduct. Now you might argue that it seems like the Avengers in S.H.E.I.L.D. are operating as an arm of the government, essentially like mercenaries, which might have given them legal cover under the battle of New York, but if that's so, that they're operating as an arm of the U.S. government, that carries with it all kinds of constitutional protections and that doesn't get them out of trouble. By the way, Tony Stark created Ultron, and effectively Ultron is his product entered in to the stream of commerce, so Tony Stark is probably personally liable on a product's liability or negligence theory for all the damage that Ultron did. And since this is a Marvel movie, I put an after-credits bonus scene about that topic at the end of this video. But the fact that the writers even considered any of these legal issues is why the adoption of Sokovia Accords is the best scene in the MCU. - Actually the best scene in the MCU is the after party from "Age of Ultron" because of how effectively it uses a light, fun moment between the Avengers to reveal important information about the main characters while still being a funny scene. - Actually the best scene in the MCU is the I'm Always Angry" scene from the first "Avengers" because it's just so iconic. - Well actually, I'd say that the best scene in the MCU is the military propaganda montage in the original "Captain America" movie because no other scene is so subversive, over-the-top, and hilarious all ... - Yeah, this is my court, objections overruled. But let's ignore those issues and let's talk about the 10 biggest problems with the U.S. version of the Sokovia Accords. So in order of ascending constitutional infirmity, let's start with the compelled speech portion of the Sokovia Accords. The Sokovia Accords state, and I quote, "Any enhanced individual who agree to sign must register with the United Nations and provide biometric data such as fingerprints and DNA samples..." "Those with secret identities must reveal their legal names and true identities to the United Nations..." This is a classic provision of compelled speech, some of which applies to signatories and some of which does not apply to signatories. But forcing individuals to give up their secret identities is the government compelling you to make a certain kind of speech. - I am Iron Man. - And if the first amendment has a problem with the government restricting certain speech, you can imagine that it is doubly problematic if it forces individuals to make a certain kind of speech. For example, in the Supreme Court case of West Virginia School Board vs. Barnette, the Supreme Court said that a school could not force students to stand and salute the flag. That was compelled speech. And in the same way that you can't force individuals to stand up and salute the flag, you can't force people to give up their secret identities and provide biometric data and fingerprints to the U.S. government. Number two, forced registration sounds a lot like internment. The Sokovia Accords requires all enhanced individuals to at least register with the government, whether they are using their powers or not, which sounds a lot like the internment of the Japanese in World War II under executive order 9066 by President Roosevelt. That executive order was tested at the Supreme Court level in a court case Korematsu, and the Supreme Court did not overrule the executive order, which interned the Japanese. Korematsu is still good law. That being said, I doubt the Supreme Court would rule the same way today, despite the fact that the ruling has never been overturned. But in any event, it seems like this is a clear violation of the fourth and fifth amendment protections and a requirement for due process. Number three, monitoring of enhanced individuals. This seems like a clear fourth amendment problem. The Sokovia Accords state, and I quote, "Those with innate powers must also wear tracking bracelets at all times..." The problem is warrantless monitoring without probable cause; just because someone is an enhanced individual would be a clear fourth amendment violation, a violation of the right to privacy, being enhanced doesn't necessarily mean that you have probable cause to monitor them. And it would be crazy to have a blanket monitoring system that monitored everyone in the United States without probable cause. So it's very good the U.S. government has never had a program like that, to monitor people without probable cause. (loon singing) The Sokovia Accords also state that, "Those with innate powers must submit to a power analysis, which will categorize their threat level and determine potential health risks..." This feels like a huge violation of the right to privacy. The government can't just go around doing medical examinations of individuals just because it feels like it or because it's in the public interest. People have individual rights specifically to protect them from this kind of invasive testing. And additionally, it would probably be a violation of Tony Stark's intellectual property. Even if he hasn't patented the Iron Man suit, it would probably be a trade secret, and the compelled power analysis would probably violate his IP rights to the suit that he created. - It's working, we're safe. America is secure. You want my property? You can't have it. - Number four, the second amendment's individual right to bear arms. While this is still a huge point of controversy, in recent Supreme Court precedent, in the District of Columbia vs. Heller, the Supreme Court confirmed that the second amendment does provide an individual right to bear arms. So, what is the threshold for Iron Man, Falcon, and War Machine to be able to use their inventions that they created effectively, the Iron Man suits or the Falcon machinery are just arms that they have created and certainly, in some circumstances, you are allowed to an individual right to bear those arms. Now obviously, individuals are not allowed to have military hardware, but the Sokovia Accords don't make it clear where the individual right to bear arms starts and where the exclusion of military technology kicks in and how that would apply to the individuals who are not innately enhanced, but have created an enhanced suit for themselves. - I have successfully privatized world peace. (Crowd clapping) So given the make up of the current Supreme Court and the deference shown to the individual right to bear arms under the second amendment, you can bet that the Sokovia Accords probably run afoul of that right under the Constitution as well. Number five, a violation of the freedom to associate. The Sokovia Accords apply to all of the Avengers, even those who are not enhanced, effectively preventing them from being a member of this community or group. Now the first amendment is most famous for the individual right to freedom of speech, but the lesser known right of the first amendment is the right to voluntarily associate. And the Sokovia Accords prevent individuals from associating with the private organization called the Avengers and the private organization called S.H.E.I.L.D. Just because you are an enhanced individual doesn't mean you lack first amendment rights to be a part of the group that you want to participate in. Number six, violation of the freedom to travel. The Sokovia Accords state, and I quote, "Any enhanced individuals who sign are prohibited from taking action in any country other than their own, unless they are first given clearance by either that country's government or by a United Nation's subcmomittee..." - Think of it this way, your school has rules, right? Like you can't draw on the walls. Well your daddy went to Germany and drew on the walls with Captain America, and that was a violation of Article 16, paragraph three of the Sokovia Accords. - Now the defined term taking action can be read very broadly. Would that prohibit all of the Avengers from setting foot in any particular country without getting the United Nations subcommittee to allow them to travel? And would it prevent them from traveling domestically in the United States? If it does, that's clearly a violation of the privileges and immunities clause of the U.S. Constitution. And not to mention, the violation of various International laws that allow freedom of travel, particularly between the U.S. and E.U. I think that this is a poorly drafted statement, and it shows how important it is to define the terms that you're dealing with, because otherwise, people will read them broadly, when they're written broadly, and it can have unintended consequences. Which takes me to problem number seven, which is vagueness. There is a constitutional rule that requires criminal laws to state explicitly and definitively, what conduct is punishable. Criminal laws that violate this requirement are said to be void on vagueness grounds. The vagueness doctrine is based on the due process clauses of the fifth and 14th amendments to the Constitution. And I think that there's a big problem here in terms of what the enhanced individuals are being accused of; vague terms like taking action, vague terms as in what constitutes an enhanced individual itself, all of these are vagueness issues that are probably so vague as to run afoul of the due process clauses in the Constitution. That's why you need lawyers to draft these things, not comic book artists, but I digress. It takes me to issue number eight, which is imprisonment. The Sokovia Accords effectively treat enhanced individuals who fail to comply with the Sokovia Accords as enemy combatants. Now it's one thing to send enemy combatants that are imprisoned in a foreign theater of war and send them to Guantanamo, but it's another thing entirely to send U.S. citizens, who were found in the United States, to the equivalent of Guantanamo on some Helicarrier someway. This is a clear due process violation. You can't just put people inside of a Helicarrier with no lawyer, no arraignment, and no bail. That's clearly a sixth amendment violation to the right to council. - You're not gonna put me in a prison. You're not gonna put any of us in a prison. - And the other side of the coin in problem number nine, which is forced conscription in to combat. The Sokovia Accords appear to force certain enhanced individuals in to fighting for the U.S. government in certain times of war, effectively the draft, but it's another thing entirely to seek out certain individuals specifically, and then force them in to combat on behalf of the government. This seems like a clear violation of the 13th amendment's prohibition against involuntary servitude. You might recall that we fought a real civil war to prevent involuntary servitude and slavery, and forcing enhanced individuals to fight for the government seems to run afoul of those prohibitions. Which takes me to problem number 10, and the biggest constitutional violation, the violation against habeus corpus. Habeus corpus is Latin for produce the body. And the Sokovia Accords state, and I quote, "Any individuals who use their powers to break the law, including those who take part in extra legal vigilante activities or are otherwise deemed to be a threat to the safety of the general public may be detained indefinitely without trial." "If an enhanced individual violates the Accords or obstructs the actions of those enforcing the Accords, they may likewise be arrested and detained indefinitely without trial..." You might see where this is going, but simply, detaining people indefinitely without trial is the classic constitutional problem. And in fact, just simply deeming someone a threat, before they have committed any kind of events is like a precrime prohibition, which again, runs afoul of the Constitution. The writ of habeus corpus requires a person in custody to be brought before a court, provided a lawyer if they can't afford one, and to be protected by the U.S. Constitution. We fought the war of Independence to have the protections of the Constitution to prevent things like indefinite imprisonment for no reason whatsoever. This violates the fourth amendment which protects people from arbitrary arrests. It violates the fifth amendment's protection against being deprived of life, liberty, and property without due process. And it violates the sixth amendment's right to council and a trial. There's actually very few parts of the Constitution that this part of the Sokovia Accords don't actually violate, and that's why the lawyers are the real superheroes in the Marvel Universe. (patriotic music) So in thinking about this Ultron Vision problem a little bit more, Tony created Vision, Vision is Tony's property, his chattel, so legally speaking, Vision is like Tony's dog.
Info
Channel: LegalEagle
Views: 1,359,638
Rating: 4.9458542 out of 5
Keywords: Legaleagle, legal eagle, legal analysis, supreme court, law firm, law school, law and order, lawyers, lawyer reacts, ace attorney, lawyer, attorney, trial, court, reaction, law, legal, suits, objection, breakdown, real lawyer, laws broken, illegal, breaking the law, broken laws, sokovia accords, captain america, civil war, iron man, avengers, marvel, tony stark, steve rogers, vision, chris evans, thor, infinity war, scarlet witch, team cap, war machine, end game, endgame, sokovia
Id: TDMd40a-A4c
Channel Id: undefined
Length: 17min 17sec (1037 seconds)
Published: Mon May 06 2019
Related Videos
Note
Please note that this website is currently a work in progress! Lots of interesting data and statistics to come.