[atlarge-discuss] Lawrence Lessig at the U.S. Supreme Court

[espresso@e-scape.net]

If Lessig's argument succeeds, there will undoubtedly be repercussions beyond the field of copyright on Disney characters. 

But what are the odds that yet another judgment that the powers of the U.S. Congress are constitutional rather than self-defined and infinitely extensible would have any real impact on, say, the notion that U.S. legislators are entitled to make laws applicable to other nations since international commerce might affect the interstate variety???

--

From Microcontent News- http://www.microcontentnews.com

A Worthwhile Blog

One of the things someone asked at the Weblog Roundtable was, "How many blogs are worthwhile?" Nick http://www.nickdenton.org had a great rejoinder: 		"How many people are worthwhile?"

But actually, last week I came across a blog that was so worthwhile that I felt honored just to read it. I'm referring to Larry Lessig's blog
http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/lessig/blog/archives/2002_10.shtml#000531
which I stumbled across a few days after the Supreme Court heard the case of <EM>Eldred v. Ashcroft</EM>.

 That's the improbable case that Larry and others have used to quixotically challenge the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act - a law used by Disney and others to endlessly extend the copyrights of Mickey Mouse et al.

I'm amazed by Larry's passion and dedication in even bringing this case before the Supreme Court. But what truly blew my mind was to read Larry's first hand account of his strategy in arguing the case before the Supreme Court. Here's a sampling:

	Our aim from the start was to get this Court to view this case in the 
	same frame that they viewed another important line of cases limiting 
	Congress's power -- the commerce clause. 
	In those cases, the Court has said, ours is a constitution of 
	enumerated powers (i.e., the only powers congress has are the powers 
	the constitution gives it); it follows that Congress's power must 
	therefore be interpreted in a way that is limited; in the context of 
	the Commerce Power, the government had argued for a standard (Congress 
	can regulate anything that "affects" interstate commerce) that 
	essentially meant it had no limit; therefore, in a line of cases 
	beginning with Lopez 	
	http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/93-1260.ZO.html
	the Court said we need a different interpretation of "commerce" that 
	actually recognizes limits. 
	Limits, not control of Congress's discretion. Congress has discretion 
	within the limits set by the constitution; but it has no discretion 
	over what, or where, the limits sit.

Ok, it took me a while to wade through this... but man, it was great to read about the <EM>actual legal strategy</EM> Larry used in front of the <EM>Supreme Court</EM>.

Now <EM>that's</EM> a worthwhile blog! (10/17/2002 7:43:29)

##########################################################
Judyth Mermelstein     "cogito ergo lego ergo cogito..."
Montreal, QC           <espresso@e-scape.net>
##########################################################
"A word to the wise is sufficient. For others, use more."
##########################################################



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de