Re: Mary Baker Eddy

On 06/18/2000, Michael J. O'Connor <mjoconor[_at_]erols.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 15 Jun 2000, Ransford Pyle <pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> wrote:
> >
> > By the separation of powers I mean particularizing legislation
> > to the point that the legislature invades judicial prerogatives.
> > Sure, the Constitution gives Congress authority over copyrights.
> > Does that mean Congress can pass laws governing copyright or does
> > it mean Congress can make special grants to individual authors?
>
> The Immigration and Nationality Act gives INS authority to confer
> immigrant status on qualifying aliens. Nevertheless, Congress has
> retained the power to grant immigrant status on selected aliens
> through private legislation, and several public figures suggested
> this course in the Elian Gonzalez affair. Congress actually does
> pass private immigration legislation of this sort every year.

This sounds like a reply to Terry Carroll's reply to my post. If, as he seemed to say, Congress can pass any private law it wants to, subject to executive veto and judicial review, why did Congress reserve this right with regard to aliens? Could Congress not have done that anyway? I can see why Congress cannot take an individual's copyright away as a denial of due process, but is it not similarly offensive to extend copyright protection to someone through private legislation? Surely we might argue that it would violate the original intention of the Constitutional grant of authority over copyrights. Who protects the public?

Yes, I realize I am being naive.

Ran Pyle
<pyle[_at_]mail.ucf.edu> Received on Mon Jun 19 2000 - 17:19:24 GMT