Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court Limits Patent Claims
Aire Libre and other readers noted a unanimous Supreme Court decision that denied LG Electronics's attempt to evade the first-sale doctrine by use of "business method" patents. LG licensed patents to Intel, then attempted to dictate what use Intel's customers could make of the Intel products incorporating LG patents. The decision (PDF) notes how easily patents can be written up as "business methods" to nullify the first-sale doctrine ("exhaustion") and to give the patent owner perpetual control downstream. Aire Libre adds, "That reasoning bodes well for copyright freedom as well, in light of the growing number of copyright holders who seek to nullify the Copyright Act's limitation on the distribution right by claiming the goods are 'licensed, not sold,' or subject to some restrictive EULA."
Reason has no place in a legal proceeding. Sad, but true. This ruling doesn't have any direct implications on copyright issues. Any perceived reason the justices showed with this ruling can only be tested against copyright if and when a similar dispute regarding copyright makes it to the Supreme Court. Until a person or organization has deep enough pockets to push/appeal a court case to the SC we'll never know if the justices' reason extends to copyright or not.
It clearly seems like LG was in the wrong here, but this was a case where both parties actually produce and sell goods using the patents they own. Has the US Supreme Court had anything to say about the numerous cases involving patent squatters/submarine patents? That seems like it ought to be a more serious issue.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
One of the Supremes is a girl, you insensitive clod!
Advice: on VPS providers
Well, let's put this in perspective. This is about one batch of capitalists battling against another batch of capitalists over an abusive patent method that, while ultimately screwing the consumer, does not in fact directly involve the consumer (it's not terribly likely that you or I were going to be directly sued by LG).
Still, it's good to see that there's some recognition at the top of the system that these patent shenanigans are beginning to seriously compromise manufacturing and development.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
True to the trollage, i must say that obama SEEMS less threatening on the freedom of speech side than hillary (the think-of-the-children queen), but i must say that both parties seem to want to limit such freedoms. Its just a question of HOW they are wanting to limit such freedoms.
Course, not enough of the population seems to care and simply 'roots for their team'. Just an observation from outside your nation.
Actually they all were you uninformed clod!
All of The Supremes were girls, you ignorant putz!
...that it is the very same conservative US Supreme Court that liberal slashdotters have been damning for years are the ones that strike this blow for freedom.
Haha, actually I've been cheering them because despite being stacked with conservatives, they have still handed Bush his most significant legal setbacks of his entire eight years. Something the majority Democrat Congress has been unable to do. It's the Republicans who have been gnashing their teeth at the Supreme Court for being 'activist judges' when they won't let Congress or the President do something for no more reason than the Constitution says they can't.
Personally, I just take this to mean that in the eyes of the least politically motivated branch of government, even when stacked with conservative opinions, Bush is way out on the right on a great many things. Yet another sign of how our country's "left-right" barometer is currently skewed heavily to the right. So don't worry. Even when some liberal justices get appointed, it won't cause the court to significantly skew to the left. While in some ways counter-intuitive, it's amazing how our least Democratic branch of government is in a unique position to protect our Democracy.
The enemies of Democracy are
It clearly seems like LG was in the wrong here, but this was a case where both parties actually produce and sell goods using the patents they own. Has the US Supreme Court had anything to say about the numerous cases involving patent squatters/submarine patents? That seems like it ought to be a more serious issue.
If you look at the Supreme Court's decision (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-937.pdf) it will be clear how it turns, first, on whether the patent license to Intel permits Intel to sell goods that practice the patents, and second, did the goods sold by Intel practice the patents. The answer to both questions was yes, triggering the application of the doctrine of exhaustion of patent rights with respect to the product that was sold. That was true even where the patent had method claims, and when those would not be completely practiced until the sold product was combined with other components. The rationale for that aspect was that the sold items practiced the patent by embodying all of the inventive matter and having in practice no other use except to practice the patent: the components left to be added were standard stuff, while all of the inventive content was in the items sold.
None of that depended in any way on the question whether the patent licensor engaged in manufacture on its own account. The court did not need to consider that. So the decision clearly applies to patent holders who grant licenses to others to sell patented products, irrespective of whether the licensors themselves do manufacturing or not.
-wb-
If you keep calling him a girl you might hurt Breyer's feelings...
As far as I know, selling processors and chipsets to other manufacturers making the actual computers is a major business for Intel, probably even much bigger than direct consumer sales. It's damn obvious then, that whatever Intel sells, most of it will be incorporated in a product of its own ans sold again by other companies and that's the whole purpose of Intel producing most of its inventory at all (chipsets etc.).
Taking that into consideration, isn't Intel likely to go medieval at anyone mobbing their most important customers with such a blatantly bogus claim? Sure, LG is big - but probably not big enough to stand chances with Intel if they were to release the hell hou^W^W^W^W^W^W lawyers...
This is Slashdot. Common sense is futile. You will be modded down.
WTF?! SCOTUS shouldn't be "left" or "right" wing! I want a Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as-is and from the beginning of it's creation. That last thing we need is for SCOTUS to interperate it in a shape/form that fits with "modern times". Screw that! If a line isn't drawn in drawn in the sand from the get go, what's the point of having this core document?
Sorry for my ranting folks, but this just bugs the hell outta me. If you want the Constitution changed, then vote to ammend it. I do not want some judge changing the original meaning to fit with their own political ideology and/or dreams for a different future.
Life is not for the lazy.
This suddenoutbreakofcommonsense only took 8 years, and one stubborn company that refused to settle when all the others did. It may have been an obvious outcome to some, but apparently not to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals or the unnamed number of other companies who gave in to the royalty demands.
The real question in all this is why the appeal court sided with LG.
Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
WTF?! SCOTUS shouldn't be "left" or "right" wing! I want a Supreme Court that will read the Constitution as-is and from the beginning of it's creation. That last thing we need is for SCOTUS to interperate it in a shape/form that fits with "modern times". Screw that! If a line isn't drawn in drawn in the sand from the get go, what's the point of having this core document?
Which, as I was trying to point out, is largely the case. You can't possibly prevent the justices from holding what you might call conservative or liberal viewpoints. Yet despite this, and despite efforts to deliberately get as many of a certain viewpoint on the bench as possible, the Supreme Court of the U.S. remains largely centrist. Overall, they have done a better job of respecting and sticking to the Constitution by far than either of the other two branches. They are the "line in the sand" you refer to, and they've done a very good job of stopping people from crossing it.
In so much as they can. I mean, they don't have the ability to rule on arbitrary issues, so as long as warrantless wiretapping doesn't come before them in a case, they have no ability to rule on it.
Sorry for my ranting folks, but this just bugs the hell outta me. If you want the Constitution changed, then vote to ammend it. I do not want some judge changing the original meaning to fit with their own political ideology and/or dreams for a different future.
Which has been happening far, far less often than you probably think. The fact is that everyone colors their interpretation of the Constitution and what it means "from the beginning of its creation" with the political ideology. I consider myself very much a constructionist (or I guess origionalist), yet I don't delude myself that my reading of what "the Founding Father's intended" isn't affected by my own beliefs.
The demonstrated ability of SCOTUS to resist this influence in their rulings is rather impressive to me, especially compared to the other two examples. All this screaming about "activist judges" changing the Constitution to suit their whims (in either direction, "left" or "right") is vastly overplayed, if not played out.
The enemies of Democracy are
This is about "method" patents, not only "business method" patents. The SCOTUS maintained that the first sale doctrine applies to method patents as well. This is a big deal for industries with complex supply chains where an end product (like a laptop) has components that have passed through many hands. In the same way that a patent holder of a surface mount resistor can't charge a royalty to the PC brand if they already charged the mother-boardmaker, a holder of a method patent for example, a "method of caching operations in a processor", cannot charge a royalty to everyone who buys and sells the product. The licensors are left with the decision to pick where in the value chain to insert their bite, at the low end where their value added is great but profits are lower, or higher up where the profits are higher but the contribution of the invention is diluted. IANAL
> I do not want some judge changing the original meaning
I don't get it. You actually believe that the words of the Constitution encode enough information to enable everyone to unequivocally understand what the authors of that document believed should be done in all possible situations (even assuming they had one unanimous opinion)?
Face it. That's impossible, and that's why we have judges. And why they're constantly overturning old decisions and laws.
Of course, I do agree with you that judges shouldn't be making their decisions based on partisan loyalty. But one has to cope with the fact that they are human also.
You know, the Bush administration supported Quanta in this case. TFA says so. This wasn't a conservative/liberal issue--this was a commercial dispute between two corporate giants--and the fact that the decision was unanimous attests to that. Contrary to popular belief, not every Supreme Court decision is an earth-shattering moment in the culture wars. Most of the Court's docket is really boring, like resolving the water rights conflict between NJ and Delaware over the Delaware river, or determining the proper scope of ERISA preemption.
I want to point out that the Court is not on the same left/right continuum as most of American politics. For example, check out U.S. v. Santos, where a plurality composed of Scalia, Thomas, Souter, and Ginsburg (Stevens concurred separately) interpreted a criminal statute in a solidly pro-defendant manner. I'm not saying that political orientation is irrelevant in predicting the Court, but the splits in the Court is much more based on legal philosophy than politics, like whether statutes should be read literally or purposively; the proper amount of deference to administrative agencies, the President, and Congress; the original meaning of the Constitution (and whether that's even relevant); etc. Remember that the most liberal Justice, Stevens, was appointed by Ford, and Souter (another "liberal" Justice) is a Bush I appointee.
And if it's not obvious by the extreme amount of law-geekness displayed, IAAL.
I agree, though you'll still get odd 'liberal' and 'conservative' readings of the constitution. Especially stuff that isn't cut and dried in the constitution, such as abortion.
For example, the earlier poster thinks that the court is conservative, while I think that it's dangerously liberal - just look at the gaping hole that is the commerce clause today.
Of course, I tend to think that the founders wrote in rather plain language, and generally speaking, KISS should apply. Especially from circuit courts, I've seen torturous readings of laws to essentially try to say that the law means the opposite of what it says.
And yes, this includes stuff like same sex marriage, abortion, discrimination, etc... It's not that I actually have a problem with same sex marriage*. I'm generally pro-choice**, and I don't care whether you're white, yellow, or black. Don't even care if you're green or purple other than curiosity as to how you got to be that way.
My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc... If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution. For that matter, I tend to think that legislators who propose, vote for, and enact blatantly unconstitutional laws should be fired.
*I'm of the opinion it should be civil unions for all, if you want to call yourself married find a priest, priestess, rabbi, mullah, witchdoctor, whatever willing to perform the ceremony.
**for first trimester, second should require some special circumstances, and third some serious medical issue(like it being discovered that said baby has no brain, and will die within a week of birth even with life support). If it should be done, the morning-after pill should be used. It should not be for sex selection, or just because you're too lazy of a dumbass to use birth control. On the other hand, if you're such a dumbass, you shouldn't be having kids anyways.
I don't read AC A human right
While I understand (and mostly agree with) your point...
I do not want my neighbors to have thermonuclear weapons under the 2nd amendment.
And if they can't, then the document is subject to interpretation in light of current technology for reasonableness.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
... will likely make its way to the supreme court. The complexity of the case, and the controversy over YOUR Intellectual Property versus MY culture. Lawrence Lessig is on staff for RDR Books defending, the same lawyer that fought (ok, and lost) in Eldred v. Ashcroft. I know this is too much to ask, but I see no reason not to revert back to the Statute of Anne. Give copyright holders a FIRM grip over their IP to allow them to reap its rewards and present it the way they desire, BUT, after a "Limited Period of Time", give it to the people to let it grow and thrive.
Unless we are going to argue reincarnation, this lifetime is the only one I have. 'Forever' is my entire lifetime, or anyone elses. Nothing that is part of my culture can be remixed or reused by myself or virtually any generation I will ever see when there is a term limit of life + 70 years / 120 years.
Anyway, Lessig and others learned some HARD lessons, such as the power of money among other things, not to mention the series of some good small wins for EFF over the past year, for GPL and such, showing the value free and freedom to the public.
In light of the entire history of supreme court they can seem small, they have ruled on the side of reason defying long standing law, and majority opinion: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), United States v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256 (1946). United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369. While Miller had to do with government taking, why can not the same PROPERTY law apply as they keep arguing. "It is the owner's loss, not the taker's gain, which is the measure of the value of the property taken." was ruled. As for Rowling v. RDR Books, IMO, an idea only becomes culture AFTER it is given to the public. And you CAN'T copyright an IDEA. Making cultural references to an idea aren't piracy, and not even plagiarism, it is literature in its absolute meaning.
So I hope that this case shows that the supreme court is ready to rule on the side of reason that Congress CAN NOT hide away like it did after LaMacchia with the NET Act. Eldred v. Ashcroft 537 U.S. 186 (2003) ruled the way it did because the argument made could not beat the argument of big money, so YES, I think this case COULD have major implications in the near future over copyright.
The only circumstances under which I could be persuaded otherwise would be if they tax this PROPERTY progressively with respect to the amount of time on copyright, gross value earned from copyright, and number of copyrights held by a person. This would make it EQUAL with real property. At present, any vaguely original though or artistry I express in a tangible way has GREATER protection than the home for my family. And before I am accused of making a straw man, consider the ways you can loose and reclaim an IP versus the way you can loose and reclaim your house.
Hope that wasn't too off topic for anyone, just my thoughts on the supreme court and reason.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
... I'm generally pro-choiceSam ty sig.
You know, the Bush administration supported Quanta in this case. TFA says so. This wasn't a conservative/liberal issue--this was a commercial dispute between two corporate giants--and the fact that the decision was unanimous attests to that.
No, it wasn't. Which makes it even less of a surprise that Slashdotters could support this decision and not be the hypocrites that the OP's troll tried to imply.
I want to point out that the Court is not on the same left/right continuum as most of American politics. For example, check out U.S. v. Santos, where a plurality composed of Scalia, Thomas, Souter, and Ginsburg (Stevens concurred separately) interpreted a criminal statute in a solidly pro-defendant manner. I'm not saying that political orientation is irrelevant in predicting the Court, but the splits in the Court is much more based on legal philosophy than politics, like whether statutes should be read literally or purposively; the proper amount of deference to administrative agencies, the President, and Congress; the original meaning of the Constitution (and whether that's even relevant); etc. Remember that the most liberal Justice, Stevens, was appointed by Ford, and Souter (another "liberal" Justice) is a Bush I appointee.
Exactly. Exactly. Thank you, that's what I was trying to get at, thanks for the info. The whole "left/right" issue affects SCOTUS at a completely different wavelength than it does Congress and the Pres. I think that's why they do a better job of upholding the Constitution. Also why the more politically minded think they are doing the opposite.
The enemies of Democracy are
http://www.lessig.org/blog/2008/02/20_minutes_or_so_on_why_i_am_4.html
A 20 minute video done by Lawrence Lessig on why he supports Obama. Would it be too much to consider that the endorsement of the Electronic Freedom Foundation?
That does give me some comfort over some of the things that REALLY concern me over Obama as mentioned above.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
the only reason the SCOTUS seems "biased" is that they can only REACT to cases brought all the way to trial by the executive (meaning a law has to be passed). That means the Legislature can write bad laws all day.. if they're never tested in court cases the court can never see them. In the same way, the Executive can pull the same crap.. like with the enemy combatant fiasco, where the DOJ kept shuffling charges and situations to keep the Court from having a case to rule on.
hence when the court gets a crack at something it's usually all or nothing. They only get to use the big hammer of throwing out laws based on breaking the Constitution, they don't typically rule on the "facts" of cases. From the other two branches perspective they can spin the court as allowing "lawbreakers" to flourish because they are the only court that judges LAW not citizens.
What was clarified in this decision is that vendors don't have the right to control the downstream licensees of their patents, and the first sale doctrine was reaffirmed.
This will change the way that EULAs are interpreted in the future. Specifically, any restrictions against resale or limiting the uses the product can be used for will no longer be valid.
"Something the majority Democrat Congress has been unable to do."
Not unable, but unwilling.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
I don't recall anywhere in the constitution or federalist papers where they considered the long term implications of the 2nd amendment with regard to technology.
You saying we are "supposed" to is about the same as the judges interpreting something.
Legalities never work for constitutions. You can't make a fusion bomb really illegal because then they find something 99% a fusion bomb that isn't one. Laws can keep up but constitutions become very ugly very fast if they try that approach.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
The main difference -- and several justices, past and present, have said this pretty clearly -- is that they understand that while they may personally agree or disagree with a particular issue brought before the Court, they understand that they must view it through the prism of the Constitution. Using a simplistic case, they may find the American Nazi Party deplorable in its viewpoints, rhetoric, and membership, but this does not preclude their right to speak, to gather peaceably, and to march under the same terms as anyone else.
It's one of the reasons that you find some fairly unexpected splits, like when Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Thomas dissented in Gonzales v. Raich over medical marijuana. In a 6-3 split, Rehnquist joined in O'Connor's dissent and Thomas wrote his own dissent, and both opinions cited the federal structure of the United States as a reason why Congress should not be allowed to regulate the use of marijuana grown for personal purposes and never crossing state lines.
I'm eagerly awaiting the results of DC v. Heller. That is one of those that I will be reading as soon as I can get a hold of it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
If you read and interpret the document within the context of its writing, the meaning remains clear. The right to keep and bear arms does not automatically extend to thermonuclear weapons, because it could not have meant such to the framers. Examined in context, the framers were clearly referring to arms (contemporary to the day) that would have been in the hands of the average person. This would have included firearms, knives, and swords. [I don't know if it wouild have included items afforded by wealth, such as cannons.]
While one can reason that this right to keep and bear arms would expand to include modern weapons, I believe that the historical record is clear enough to rule out the expansion of such rights to weapons of mass destruction as are nuclear weapons. One could argue, however, that the States could retain a nuclear arsenal, as a deterrent against the misuse of the national army against the States (a frightening thought, but one that seems to be in line with the intent of the framers).
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
"If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution."
It has already been done. It is the 9th amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Just because a right isn't listed in the constitution, that doesn't mean it isn't constitutionally protected. (But clearly it helps.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
"For example, the earlier poster thinks that the court is conservative, while I think that it's dangerously liberal - just look at the gaping hole that is the commerce clause today."
I would like to refer you to a recent article in the NY Times which pointed out that in the first year of the Roberts court, a great majority of the decisions came down to 5-4 votes split along the typical ideological line. Even Judge Posner criticized this record. So far this year, there are signs that the Chief Justice is working harder to achive a stronger consensus, thus we're getting more 6-3 or 7-2 votes and presumably decision with nuance. So while GW Bush nominated Roberts on his conservative plus judicial credentials, Roberts appears to wish to avoid looking too partisan.
Interesingly enough, the words 'abortion' and 'marriage' does not appear in the US constitution. Nor does the word "internet". So in such cases, should SCOTUS leave them ALL to the states or should they make reasonable extrapolations based on other historical precedents?
The SCOTUS haven't respected the Constitution for a long time. c.f. Wickard v. Filburn. The fact that anyone can argue that that is a reasonable interpretation of the interstate commerce clause simply defies belief. I mean, deep down, they have to know that's wrong, right?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Which is exactly what the founders intended. The Supreme Court exists to protect us from the 'tyranny of the majority'. We are not a true democracy because a pure democracy can be just as dangerous to liberty as a dictatorship.
This further limits any legal action Apple might take against Psystar for shipping computers that run retail copies of the MacOS.
Apple is limited on the copyright front by antitrust law; the requirement in the EULA that purports to require that the software only be run on Apple hardware is probably an illegal tying arrangement. (Don't argue otherwise without doing some reading first. There's a history of relevant cases and the party trying to enforce the tying terms usually loses.)
With this decision, Apple is also limited on the patent front. Apple's patent rights were "exhausted" when the boxed copy of the MacOS was sold. They can't raise a patent claim based on some restriction on later use of the software, not even for "method" claims.
I think you might need to read your copy of the constitution closer. People have rights. The government has powers. If something isn't directly coded as a power of government, it IS a right of the people. See the 9th amendment for more details
Please tag responsibly.
"What about chainsaws?" -- Leatherface
Personally, I think such controversial issues should be left at the state level. We have fifty of them. There's nothing wrong with a little diversity in America IMHO. Besides, the general idea behind federalism was to allow more control at the state level so as to have each state compete against each other in the arena of ideas and economy.
Can I make a giant leap here? We are in this mess today because of slavery. While it was necessary to have it abolished, the defeat of the South solidified power/control being stripped at the state level.
Life is not for the lazy.
> what would Washington say to see Obama in the Presidency ...
I think that's kind of a strawman. It might be what he would say if he were shown that scenario with no context, but what is actually important is what he would say if he were also to be exposed (at a slow enough rate to absorb) to all of the societal changes which have taken place in the meantime, before being shown Obama.
<pedantic>
BTW, the Oval Office was built in 1909 and I doubt that Washington would recognize a modern necktie, either. And "nigger" wasn't necessarily derogatory, in Washington's time.
</pedantic>
Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
Now if one or more of the former states had later decided they wanted back in, Congress could have said no, and it would have all been constitutional.
Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
You saying we are "supposed" to is about the same as the judges interpreting something. No. The Founding Fathers knew that they couldn't cover every possible situation and made provisions for amending the Constitution. "Supposed to" has nothing to do with it. Legalities never work for constitutions. You can't make a fusion bomb really illegal because then they find something 99% a fusion bomb that isn't one. Laws can keep up but constitutions become very ugly very fast if they try that approach. Apples and oranges. Legality refers to laws. Constitutional refers to the Constitution. The Constitution wasn't supposed to be tinkered with and this is why changing it is so difficult. If you don't like this, there is a process for changing that too.
Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
In other words, you want a right-wing SCOTUS. :-)
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
I think this is trickier than you imply, though. The gaping hole can't be fixed without overturning precedent. A SCOTUS decision about a constitutional matter, even a really stupid and bad one, becomes the law, don't you think? Thus a conservative SCOTUS has a problem: do they defy the written constitution, or defy the precedent? They lose their "conservative" label either way.
IMHO, the only good bugfix for the interstate commerce error, is to pass Yet Another amendment, which defines interstate commerce. That definition can be a very plain common-sense one that every layman would just assume is already the case (but isn't).
I don't think it's realistic to expect SCOTUS, no matter how conservative, to overturn a decades-old liberal SCOTUS decision. It's done and a constitutional patch is required.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Are you sure you meant the 5th Amendment (due process)?
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
The estimated cost is $5 billion per bomb.
So Bill Gates could buy 6 and still have $10 billion left over.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
but which others might call "'legislating from the bench', inventing rights." Two off the top of my head: Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda rights), and Mapp v. Ohio (inadmissible evidence).
I'd still say that they should err on the side of FOLLOWING the constitution. Miranda fits neatly in with the fifth, but as far as I'm concerned shouldn't be necessary. Most people today know about the fifth. Though, yes, in part it's from the popularization of Miranda. Doesn't mean that it couldn't have been handled through proper law - whether that be education about it in the schools, or an outright law that requires the statement. Today, it seems to be used more as an excuse to throw out confessions and such.
As for Mapp vs Ohio, I believe that it could have been much cleaner if it was done by law and not bench. Again, it's a fairly straight forward fit into the fourth.
Call it a personal foible. For example, I'd prefer that the unconstitutional(in my mind) firearm ban in Washington DC be fixed by the legislature and president. But I'm not going to object to it being thrown out by the SC(it's currently before them). I wouldn't object to the closing of the NFA being found unconstitutional, but I'd prefer congress did it the proper way.
I don't read AC A human right
Can I make a giant leap here? We are in this mess today because of slavery. While it was necessary to have it abolished, the defeat of the South solidified power/control being stripped at the state level.
I most definitely agree with you. The civil war resulted in a number of precedents that gave the federal government far more power. Other points would be the change of making Senators directly elected instead of chosen by the individual state legislatures. Before that, the individuals selected would serve their people, but more indirectly. IE the the senators from Virginia would represent Virginia, not the people in district 1 or 2. Part of that would be NOT granting the federal government too much power.
WWII, the great depression, a couple of additional points of expanding federal government.
I don't read AC A human right
Oh, I agree in philosophy, realistically I believe that the 9th was meant more on a limitation of government's power.
IE a 'you can't do what we didn't tell you you could do'.
What I'm trying to get at, is that some people have some rather insane ideas of 'rights'.
Some people believe that they have the right to 'not be offended'. Whether that be gays, catholics, sex ed, the color purple, etc...
Over in Europe, proposed constitutional amendments include 'affordable housing'. Doesn't matter if you have no income, the government is supposed to give you a house. Similar items like health care and food have been seen. Call me a hard ass, but a 'right' isn't something that should cost others to give you. They should be freedoms - not subsidies.
I stand by my belief that it's better for the legislature to define stuff in a clear manner. Or, to put it another way, I prefer when they tell the government they can't do something over telling them to do something.
I don't read AC A human right
Any way you look at it, that's some of the most tortured grammatical architecture ever devised. ;)
My objection is philosophical in nature - courts are not to be 'legislating from the bench', inventing rights, etc... If we decide that we need a new right, it should be acknowledged in the traditional way - amend the constitution. My objection to that perspective is equally philosophical - that rights are inherent, not granted. Your perspective, interestingly, is exactly what the Founders feared when they crafted the Bill of Rights."But, Jefferson, if we enumerate a bunch of rights, won't people start thinking that that's all you get, and anything not listed needs to be 'invented' and then 'acknowledged by amending the constitution'?"
That's why number nine is in there... We have lots of rights. A few are so important that they're specifically enumerated, but the inclusion of those in no way implies that they're all we've got, until some 'activist judge legislates from the bench' to 'invent a new right'.
With all due respect, your philosophical argument is the exact opposite of the philosophy of the Founders.
It should not be for sex selection, or just because you're too lazy of a dumbass to use birth control. And just one quibble. Though we hear this meme a lot, there are a few facts that get lost. No abortions are done in the third trimester out of convenience or laziness. None whatsoever. They're only performed to protect the life or health of the mother. Third-trimester abortion bans, ostensibly to "save babies", accomplish nothing except killing women.Please restrict any ban talk to second trimester.
Ok, maybe I didn't make myself clear in some respects.
I much prefer the SC to be telling congress, the president, and the rest of the government what they can't do, rather than what they can do.
IE not allow congress to say that a crop, grown on the farmer's own land, fed to the farmer's own cattle, which are sold within the state, is NOT interstate congress because if he hadn't grown the crop, he might of purchased it from an out of state source.
On the abortion angle, I was talking about all abortions - not just third trimester. 1st trimester - failures of birth control, rape, general stupidity/not ready for a child. Second - detected birth defects, genetic problems, and such. Third - Health & Safety of mother. A reason valid for a later trimester is valid earlier, of course.
I don't read AC A human right