Kal
Smash Champion
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2004
- Messages
- 2,974
America is often attributed with having the first "modern" constitution (also called a democratic or enlightened constitution). There has been discussion by a small group of scholars and activists to hold a Second Constitutional Convention of the United States in an attempt to reform the Constitution. In any case, we would need thirty-eight states to be able to make any amendments to the constitution:
Lawrence Lessig proposes this reform because, as he claims, there is too much potential for corruption in Congress (in particular how a Congressman is influenced by funding for reelection).
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, and one particular power
Of course, this is inane. Extending copyright retroactively past a certain point obviously does not promote progress (and, in fact, good arguments have been made for why any sort of intellectual monopoly does exactly the opposite). It's also entirely possible for Congress to simply extend Copyright every time it is about to expire; in essence, it is making Copyright effectively indefinite in spite of the obvious Constitutional restriction.
This is one issue that is especially important to me personally, and I feel a Second Constitutional Convention would be useful in this regard. What opinions does The Proving Grounds have? Do you feel a Second Constitutional Convention is appropriate in order to rewrite the Constitution? If not, do you feel any parts of the Constitution should be amended in any way?
For those unfamiliar with the American Constitution, Wikipedia provides a good summary.
American citizens tend to take much pride in their constitution, and much of this pride is justifiable. However, the very fact that this constitution has been ratified twenty-seven times suggests that it may also be prudent to rewrite it altogether using modern vernacular and taking into account contemporary issues.The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Lawrence Lessig proposes this reform because, as he claims, there is too much potential for corruption in Congress (in particular how a Congressman is influenced by funding for reelection).
He also remarks on copyright law (an issue he took all the way to the Supreme Court), and that is the most relevant issue to me:Lawrence Lessig said:But somebody at the convention said that "what if Congress is the problem -- what do we do then?" So they set up an alternative path... that states can call on Congress to call a Convention. The convention, then, proposes the amendments, and those amendments have to pass by three fourths of the states. So, either way, thirty eight states have to ratify an amendment, but the sources of those amendments are different. One is inside, one is outside.
Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, and one particular power
has been heavily stretched by American corporations (Disney, the MPAA and RIAA, in particular). In my opinion, the original interpretation of this did not allow for any copyright law, because the word "Right" at the time the Constitution was written very strictly referred to "Natural Right," as opposed to a privilege. Copyright is surely a privilege. However, even interpreting it as allowing for the privilege of Copyright, it seems absurd that Congress can continue to extend the duration of Copyright, as this goes against the "limited Times" mentioned within the Copyright Clause. The Supreme Court, however, ruled that retroactively extending copyright duration was Constitutional.To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries
Of course, this is inane. Extending copyright retroactively past a certain point obviously does not promote progress (and, in fact, good arguments have been made for why any sort of intellectual monopoly does exactly the opposite). It's also entirely possible for Congress to simply extend Copyright every time it is about to expire; in essence, it is making Copyright effectively indefinite in spite of the obvious Constitutional restriction.
This is one issue that is especially important to me personally, and I feel a Second Constitutional Convention would be useful in this regard. What opinions does The Proving Grounds have? Do you feel a Second Constitutional Convention is appropriate in order to rewrite the Constitution? If not, do you feel any parts of the Constitution should be amended in any way?
For those unfamiliar with the American Constitution, Wikipedia provides a good summary.