While I agree that the founding fathers never imagined that copyright would be extended as far as it has, I think Mr. Noring's lament concerning the erosion of civil rights and the intentions of the founding fathers illustrates the dangers of following what one presumes is the intent of the Constitution's framers.
The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the FEDERAL government, not the states, so the founding fathers were probably familiar with restrictions on civil liberties that were much more dramatic than those we see today. Hugo Black's campaign to incorporate the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment (and thus force the states to comply with them) did not begin until 1947 (separation of church and state) and did not end until 1969 (double jeopardy). In that time, in addition to those rights, the Supreme Court, by its judicial interpretation of the 14th Amendment, forced the states to accord individuals the right to a public trial, the right to freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, cruel and unusual punishments, counsel to represent them, a speedy trial, and trial by jury in criminal cases. The right that Mr. Noring refers to--the right against self-incrimination--was not imposed upon the states until 1964. I daresay none of these developments was anticipated by the founding fathers, who pretty much left the individual states to do as they pleased.
Getting back to the copyright issue, I agree that the intent of the founders is relevant, if only because the purpose is specifically stated in the Constitution which empowers the Congress "[t]o promote the Progress of Science . . . by securing for limited Times to Authors . . . the exclusive Right to their . . . Writings." I honestly don't see how life + 70 years accomplishes that aim.
Kevin Grierson
>>> noring[_at_]netcom.com 08/29/00 09:43PM >>>
This reminds me of how the courts have gotten so deep into semantics (word
games) that they oftentimes overlook or even ignore original intent (the
hermeneutics). An example of this silliness (and a dangerous silliness from
a civil liberties viewpoint) is the part of the 5th Amendment saying that a
person "shall [not] be compelled in a criminal case to be a witness against
himself." Of course, the Supreme Court has ruled, in their infinite wisdom,
that a person can be compelled to turn over a key or password which might
incriminate them, since the turning over of the key or password is in and of
itself neutral, not incriminating the person. But in my opinion this is
simply word games by those who find the Bill of Rights an inconvenience and
I'm certain our Founding Fathers would be appalled at how our civil liberties
have eroded these last two centuries by playing such word games. (And note,
too, that over time the actual meanings of words themselves change, another
important reason to heavily use hermeneutics in applying the Constitution.)
Received on Thu Aug 31 2000 - 18:27:11 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:40 GMT