Re: Copyright Extension Bill Passes Congress

On Thu, 29 Oct 1998, Andrew C. Greenberg <werdna[_at_]gate.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 28 Oct 1998, Terry Carroll <carroll[_at_]tjc.com> wrote:
> >
> > Does it bother anyone else that a member of Congress is so unfamiliar
> > with the portion of the Constitution that sets out the powers of
> > Congress that she has to be informed of basic limitations by "staff"?
>
> Not in this case. While Terry's remark has a wonderful ring of irony,
> the issue that the Constitution permits a Copyright term to extend only
> for a limited time is sufficiently obscure -- except to we who practice
> law in the area -- that I don't find this troublesome, even for a member
> on that committee. Indeed, this is what staff lawyers are for.

I disagree. First, I think every Member of Congress should be familiar with Article I of the Constitution, particularly section 8. This is Article and Section that prescribes the powers of Congress. There is far more reason for a Member to be intimately familiar with this Section than there is for any of us -- it is the basic charter for what the institution can and cannot do. Ignorance of these powers and their limits, on the part of a member of the institution exercising those powers, is inexcusable.

Second, Mary Bono is not any Member of Congress. She's a member of the House Judiciary Committee and its Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property. I am appalled that anyone can have membership in the subcommittee that shapes our intellectual property legislation and remain unacquainted with the rather short clause that empowers Congress to legislate in that area.

--
Terry Carroll       | "Report of the Committee On Governmental Affairs,
Santa Clara, CA     | United States Senate, To Accompany S. 1364, An Act To
carroll[_at_]tjc.com     | Eliminate Unnecessary and Wasteful Federal Reports."
Modell delendus est |  - Title of U.S. Senate Report 105-187, May 11, 1998