Quote:
Originally Posted by schex86
Some laws relate more to the Constitution than others. Many people in my country now believe that the lawmakers are pandering to special interest and are actively circumventing the will of the people in many respects.
|
Many in your country believe all Muslims are evil terrorist too but that doesn't make it true!
Seriously though, I agree many laws, including copyright ones, have been co-opted by lobby groups for the benefit of a few. That doesn't mean any and all copyright law changes since the 1790 Act are invalid.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
And since in my country the Constitution and its Amendments most directly reflects the will of the people, being that it was ratified by the people and by the states, then that is why I have turned to this document. Regardless, of its age, I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it the most perfect written representation of the will of the people. I cannot, unfortunately, say the same for today's lawmakers and the laws they have produced.
|
There can be no perfect written representation of the will of the people.
The written word is imprecise and is written by imprecise and imperfect people.
Remember, the Constitution of Japan was ratified by the people too but it was written by the USA and the Japanese were literally held to gun point to ratify it. Would you also say that it is the perfect representation of the will of the people simply because the people ratified it? Pretty much the same goes for Iraq now too, though of course it was done much more subtly this time.
And lets just say, for the sake of it, the USA Constitution is as close to perfect as we could hope. For you to believe this to be so because it was "ratified by the people", you must believe in the democratic process. Why do you believe the democratic process would be any more workable then than now? Remember, it is a process of the people and people were just as flawed then as they are now.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
In the case of the Copyright Act of 1790, as you seem to have ignored,
|
I have ignored nothing, I simply disagree with your assertion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
I already mentioned the fact that it was drafted by some of the same men who wrote the Constitution.
|
Yes, exactly, "
some of the same men". Not exactly the same men.
Further, those men, believe it or not, were not perfect. Neither were the constituents that made up the USA at the time. Ergo, the Constitution can not possibly be a perfect representation of the will of the people.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
Now, I know this is a stretch, but if I needed to further qualify what the founders meant by "Useful Arts" in the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, then wouldn't it be beneficial to look at that clause put into practice by the same people who wrote it?? And this just a few years after the Constitution itself was written??
|
1: Not the same people. Only some of the same people. Some others who were different and thus their defitions, thoughts and feelings on the matter would have been different.
2: This different set of people, it could reasonably be expected, would come to a different conclusion regarding what exactly was meant. This committee would have taken every persons opinion into account and not simply acquiesced to the wishes of those who wrote the Constitution. Simply acquiescing would not be in the spirit of the democratic process and I'm sure even the founding fathers would not have wished for the government of the day to have taken that path.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
So no, it is not besides the point, it is the point, and you apparently keep missing it.
|
Nope, not missing it, just not agreeing with your conclusions because they are based on faulty logic.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
My credentials  How about this, you show me yours, and I'll show you mine? |
I am not the one claiming that my opinion on what a single clause in your Constitution means is the correct and, seemingly only, valid one . You are the one doing that. I am merely pointing out that the reasoning you have used to come to your conclusion is faulty and therefore your conclusion may be, and likely is, also faulty.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
Credentials is what got us into this mess in the first place. Its time we, as Citizens, as Individuals, took a step back and took a long hard look at the core underlying principles of our Constitution, sans the many layers of obfuscation foisted onto it over the years by the "greatest" minds of my country. On what basis, should you accept this? That's up to you.
|
I suppose it is easier to simply take your own reading and opinion on the matter as the only valid one and disregard any laws that you believe do not adhere to your personal opinion on the matter.
Not a very "will of the people" attitude but who really cares right?
Mind you, I'm not suggesting that all laws must or should be obeyed. Frankly it's not any concern to me if you choose to do so or not. I'm merely pointing out that just because you don't agree with a law does not mean that it is a law that does not reflect the "will of the people".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by schex86
Mine always has been: Seek the Truth.
|
Interesting but not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Cheers,
PKFFW