Re: ELDRED

From: Denis Borges Barbosa <denisbarbosa[_at_]unikey.com.br>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 12:32:29 -0200

The problem, as I see, is not  the rights of man. Is one of vested rights. Given the significant difference  between legal systems, on most roman tradition systems, a right of free use subject to a certain delay of time is a vested right albeit not immediately enforceable (as to the free use). All the means to preserve the flow and end of time as assured at moment zero are however allowed.

Once a exclusive right is acquired, subject to a definite time, all the persons excluded from the enjoyment by the acquisition have a rightful expectation of free use when the time expires. If such expectation is assimilable to an easement or a vested right is certainly a question of jurisdiction. But only so.

I notice that in Sears, Roebuck & Co. V. Stiffel Co., 376 U.S. 225 (1964), the court said:

"During that period of time no one may make, use, or sell the patented product without the patentee's authority. But in rewarding useful invention, the "rights and welfare of the community must be fairly dealt with and effectually guarded. To that end the prerequisites to obtaining a patent are strictly observed, and when the patent has issued the limitations on its exercise are equally strictly enforced. (...)

Ø       when the patent expires the monopoly created by it expires, too, and the right to make the article - including the right to make it in precisely the shape it carried when patented - passes to the public.

At 21:23 27/01/03 -0600, you wrote:

interesting, the congress has powers, the people have the ultimate
authority to grant and to take away the powers. So long as the
congress limits its exercise of powers to those specifically granted to
the three branches of government by the collective and individual rights
of man..and so long as the collective and individual man(homo sapiens) is
satisfied with the exercise of that power within the authorized scope?


What I cannot understand  is the Supreme courts avoidance in
considering the underlying "rights of man" in any constitutional
question? the question of the scope of the authoritive grant would, it
would seem, in conflicts which arise between the authority granted to
government and the authority reserved exclusively to mankind; and to
rights granted to non humans as opposed to rights granted to others, to
those rights, held inalienable and unique to humanity.


I presume an essential assumption is: the living humans, are the
representatives of mankind for the purpose of deciding the scope of the
authorities conveyed. It will be the living humans who will be called to
oversee the performance of their government and to enforce the fiduciary
obligations of those who are allowed to operate the human empowered
government.

That must be why Art. 5 does not limit the ways in which the constitution
can be amended?  It merely provides safe harbours ...?  I have always
wanted to understand this better?  Thanks for bring it up.
sterling


sterling


On Fri, 24 Jan 2003, Dodi Schultz wrote:

>
> Keith Handley writes,
>
>   >> The Congress does not have rights; it has powers.
>
> Well, excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me.
>
> SCOTUS said that Congress was exercising Constitutionally granted *powers*
> when it enacted the CTEA.
>
> Okay?  ;-)
>
> --DS
>

Received on Tue Jan 28 2003 - 14:35:58 GMT