|
|
Posted by Spex on 12/08/06 19:31
PTravel wrote:
> "Bob Quintal" <rquintal@sPAmpatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:Xns9892DFF233D73BQuintal@66.150.105.47...
>> "J. Clarke" <Jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:elagvr02264@news3.newsguy.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 08 Dec 2006 00:22:55 +0000, Bob Quintal wrote:
>>>> And that is the point I'm making, is that the original
>>>> concept of copyright was to incease the learning of Science,
>>>> and useful arts, which is the practical application of
>>>> Science (today called engineering), not to protect works of
>>>> entertainment.
>>> Note that there was no distinction between books by content.
>>>
>> Not in the law itself, but one must include the authority for
>> creating the law, the Constitution, That stated to promote the
>> progress of Science. and the title of the law "An act to promote
>> Learning.... ...
>>
>> I sorta take that as excluding "To promote the progress of
>> Politics...
>
> Ah, now I get it. Laws and the Constitution mean what you take them to
> mean. So it's safe to ignore history, hundreds of years of jurisprudence,
> the Supreme Court and all others charged with construing the Constitution,
> etc. Wow. Even Judge Bork was that much of a text-bound constructionist.
>
> Sorry. The Constitution was NEVER intended to be understood and construed
> at such a basic and primitive level.
>
Why is it when I listen/read Americans waxing lyrical about their
justice system OJ immediately springs to mind?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|