[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.

J.A. Henshaw jeff at jhenshaw.com
Thu Mar 28 00:09:16 UTC 2002


Wil Cooley wrote:

> Also Sprach Craighead, Scot D <craighead.scot at vectorscm.com> on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 at 02:56:25PM PST
> 
> 
>>I am a lay person and I can understand it.  I read it in junior high
>>school and felt that I pretty much understood it then.
>>
> 
> I'm impressed.  I've read it and still think there are
> things I don't understand.
> 
> 
>>What I see on TV all the time is people in fancy suits trying to twist
>>meanings of words to justify things they know perfectly well are wrong.
>>
> 
> Are you talking about Matlock?  The last time I checked, most trials
> did not allow cameras.  Or perhaps you mean CSPAN?
> 
> 
>>The second amendment is perfectly clear, but people try to tell you
>>it doesn't mean you have the right to own a gun.  The first amendment
>>is very clear, but just today a law was signed that says you can't
>>run a political add 60 days before an election.  This is what I am
>>referring to.
>>
> 
> Sure, but you are not considering the greater context: the preamble
> sets forth the goals of the constitution.  What happens when exercise
> of rights provided for in the Bill of Rights militates against
> the goals outlined in the preamble?  Or what about the changes in
> the world that have happened in the last 200 years that nullify
> the stated reasons for certain rights or requirements?  After all,
> it's been a very busy couple of centuries.  For example, in the 7th
> amendment, a figure of greater than $20 is proposed as the minimum
> requirement for a common law trial by jury.  Do we stick with that
> $20 figure or do we assume $20 adjusted for inflation?  It's not
> clear which.  The $20 minimum is proposed clearly for a reason
> which one must hope is better than 20 being a "magical number."
> 
> Wil
> 


Pretty ironic that you choose this as an example.

$20.00 is actually worth a lot more than 20 federal reserve 
notes.

If the law were applied by the courts;  we wouldn't have 
this discussion,  because $20.00 would be worth exactly 
$20.00 today,  and would buy just as much as it did then.

Like I say over and over, if you address the FUNDAMENTAL 
problems,  the bullshit distractions evaporate.



-- 
Democracy is when two wolves and a sheep vote on what they 
will have for lunch.





More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list