Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward
Our constitution explicitly forbids a perpetual copyright. This was part of it from day one. So it doesn't matter what our Congress passes, it would be turned over as unconstitutional.
|
OK, then, it could be done as an amendment to the constitution, could it not? The constitution is not "set in stone" - it has been amended many times, and things that were prohibited have been re-permitted, eg the prohibition on alcohol.
Quote:
|
Here's another one, broader and more sinister. The British military serves Her Majesty, and by devolution, Her Majesty's government. The US military does not serve the US government. It's officers and enlisted personnel are sworn to uphold the constitution. Now our government follows the constitution, which defines it's powers, and as it's is constitutional valid, and the military follows it's orders. But it does so because the government is an expression of the constitution, not as an entity in itself. If a government were to decide to pitch out the constitution, the military would be legally in the right to overthrow it, in the name of the constitution.
|
But you're talking "theory", Ralph. Let's take a practical example: I believe that the US constitution explicitly prohibits detention without trial, and yet that is precisely what has been going on for the last few years at Guantanemo Bay. The military forces involved did not refuse to obey their orders on the grounds that they were unconstitutional, did they?