[PLUG-TALK] Fair Use, etc.
Craighead, Scot D
craighead.scot at vectorscm.com
Thu Mar 28 00:20:10 UTC 2002
>I'm impressed. I've read it and still think there are
>things I don't understand.
I didn't say I understand every last thing, but I got most of it, as I'm
sure you do.
>Are you talking about Matlock? The last time I checked, most trials
>did not allow cameras. Or perhaps you mean CSPAN?
No. I'm talking about CNN and FOX News.
>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."
Here is where I really disagree with you and hope you will consider what I
am saying and not just dismiss it as an arguement to rebut. Yes it has been
more than 200 years and we have changed technologically. Does that mean
that the constitution is out of date and no longer usable? I say no.
The writers of the constitution wrote it so that it could be changed to meet
with the times. It is all in black and white how it should be changed.
What we have is people trying to use to courts to change it without doing
what is spelled out in black and white. Why? Because they are in the
minority and could never get the changes they want to the right way.
I don't believe the constitution is out of date. The idea of free speech
means the same thing then as it does now. Certainly, we have different ways
to distribute our speech, but what has changed? Did the founding fathers
understand what a firearm was? I think so. I don't think they included the
second amendment for sport hunting. The ideas they wrote down still apply
just as well.
More information about the PLUG-talk
mailing list