Actually, he is right, although the logic is a bit perverse and only because of a loophole Congress created in copyright law.
See, what the court ruled is that in Blizzard's case, you are *licensing* a copy. As such, you aren't the "owner" of the copy and therefore those protections don't apply.
Hence why so many software companies push "licenses", so they can have total control in saying what you can and can't do with the software. If you were the actual owner, you could tell them to take a hike.
Personally, I think the licensing loophole is a total crock of shit because it completely trumps uses of copyright works that would normally be considered legal. It is a dangerous exception and a slippery slope because it opens the door for extending licenses to other works.
Which, although I believe RMS is a bit extreme, is exactly what he has been warning about for quite some time.
I do agree with your assessment that the present judicial check is not optimal in dealing with those unconstitutional laws and policies. I was merely pointing out that the judicial system, in striking down such laws and policies when they do, is fulfilling it's duties in the system of checks and balances.
First, we are not legally at war, even though in practicality the US is. Congress authorized military force to support UN resolution, but did not do a Declaration of War. That's an important distinction, because it prevents the Executive branch from just declaring us at war ad infinitum and invoking wartime powers at their will and leisure.
So the President saying he was invoking his wartime powers as a basis for authorizing warrantless wiretapping is a non sequitur, since we legally aren't at war.
Second, your attempt to portray wiretaps as a military matter because of the source of the information doesn't fly. The source of the information doesn't matter, what matters is the act the Government is attempting to do. And if that act is wiretapping a US citizen, then the 4th kicks in. It isn't civilian judges ruling on military matters, it's civilian judges ruling on due process.
Now, as to whether civilian courts are the wrong approach for prosecuting terrorists, that's completely *irrelevant* for whether warrants need to be issued for *spying on Americans*. Congress created FISA specifically for the purpose of providing oversight for intelligence activities, with FISA courts providing oversight in instances where a US citizen may be under suspect.
To be clear: FISA did not prevent the gathering of information. Period. If it was an emergency, that act allowed for getting a warrant 72 hours *after* the wiretap. FISA approval for warrants borders on rubberstamping, the percentage is that high. So this nonsense of invoking Jefferson and implying that strict observance would have had some dire threat on self-preservation is just a total crock, since following the law would have had *the exact same result as not following it*.
Jefferson in that same letter:
"They do not go to the case of persons charged with petty duties, where consequences are trifling, and time allowed for a legal course, nor to authorize them to take such cases out of the written law. In these, the example of overleaping the law is of greater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions."
Jefferson pretty much laying out that if time allows, there's no reason to ignore written law. Given the 72 hour, after the fact warrants allowed by FISA in the first place, it's a hard sell trying to make the "dire threat" argument for overleaping law.
So what really occurred? My guess is that the Executive probably came to the decision they needed to do some type of mass invasive dragnet surveillance that would have been practically impossible from a warrant standpoint under FISA. Since going to Congress to ask for those powers would have brought that into the open, the Executive decided they would take the wartime powers position and just do it anyway. They probably didn't know specifically who or what they were looking for, just anything suspicious.
Much as some people may dislike it, the fact is laws passed by Congress and policies set by the Executive branch have to pass Constitutional muster. That's part of the judicial branch's job, to ensure a check in the system to ensure the legislative and executive branches are acting within the constraints of the powers granted to those branches by the Constitution.
If the fourth amendment is too restrictive to deal with the realities of today's environment, then Congress is free to pursue modification through the process of Constitutional amendment. Until then, it is the duty of the judicial branch to uphold it as it stands.
Also, in reference to your privacy argument of terrorists vs. YouTube viewers, the Constitution grants and limits the powers of government. So while the government may be prohibited from performing a certain act, that doesn't mean it is applicable to individuals/corporations. If you think that is insane then I suggest you call your Congressman about the matter because that is where the problem lies, not in the judicial branch.
That's all true, however, the point being made is that companies are not selling/telling their customers this. They are advertising it as unlimited.
To build on the analogy, you can have unlimited beer but if we see you drinking more than a six beers a day we'll cap how much beer you can have. See how ridiculous that is?
Overselling is not unreasonable. Advertising as unlimited is.
Again, increasing shareholder value isn't the reason nations/states charter corporations. The nation/state benefits from the works produced by corporations, the increases in wealth of it's citizens employed by corporations, and the wealth distribution though taxation for improving public services.
When corporations work under the sole mandate of maximizing shareholder wealth, then naturally they will minimize whatever possible to do so, even if it is detrimental to the nation/states that chartered them to begin with and even possibly to it's own long-term survival.
Corporations are not merely vehicles the nation/state creates for the purpose of wealth redistribution; as you pointed out the nation/state is capable of doing that on their own. They are meant to be vehicles to produce works and create wealth for the nation/state.
Make no mistake, corporations are a construction of nations/states and their citizens. As such, it is the best interest of the nation/state to ensure that the mandates under which corporations are chartered and operate serve the nation/state and it's citizens. To do otherwise defeats the purpose of the construct to begin with.
In a manner of speaking, yes. However, corporations have a fascist intent inherently for the most part. Nations and states provide legal frameworks for corporations to exist as entities, for the purpose of promoting progress and advancement that will benefit the nation/state and it's citizens.
When governed properly, corporations fulfill that intent very, very well. Nations/states, their citizens, and corporations all benefit. What the article is pointing out is that without proper governance, corporations may seek to enrich themselves at the expense of nations/states and their citizens.
As nations and states (and by extension it's citizens) in essence create corporations through their laws with the intent of benefiting from the works of those corporations, if those works do not benefit said nation/state (or even become detrimental) it logically follows that such inequity will be corrected by redefining corporations and changing it's laws.
The article is highlighting what the actual intent of corporations is, to enrich the nation/state and it's citizens which chartered it, not to merely increase corporate shareholder value. As such, it is not only reasonable but completely logical that corporate law reflect that intent and not perversed in such a way as to undermine the original purpose.
Err, no. Violating a EULA is not the same as violating the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license, it outlines how the software may be *distributed*. A EULA is a contract for use.
If you violate the EULA, then you forgo the rights to use the software. If you still use it, you aren't violating any copyright because you haven't *distributed* anything.
Which is where this case should go cold. It's a fairly ludicrous argument to claim that running the software constitutes distribution.
As much as some companies want it to be, copyright isn't about copying. It's about distribution, and for distribution to occur you must give a copy to a third party.
What a rather twisted bit of logic. Because the US isn't oppressive in it's own backyard, it is therefore not oppressive even if it supports governments that are. Sorry, but that logic doesn't fly. You are supporting oppression, where you are supporting it doesn't matter. Oppression by proxy is no less a sin then doing it firsthand.
"Our founding fathers were NOT stupid! They were painfully aware of examples in which the works of individuals were grabbed immediately "for the good of society". And it doesn't work."
If you were indeed aware of the history, then you would not have made such a statement. That implies that the founding fathers established limited monopolies because they knew that not having them "doesn't work". Which is COMPLETELY the polar opposite from which their lines of thinking were drawing from. The founding fathers were of the mind to BAN ALL monopolies, and they did exactly that with only a *small and limited* exception (begrudgingly at that). They absolutely believed that it "would work" not having any monopolies at all.
In short, your representations that the founding fathers established copyright and patents because they understood it *had* to exist for the good of society isn't actually the reason they were established. It was to provide an incentive, but wasn't actually in their view a necessity for society.
I am not blaming the original system for anything, merely pointing out that your representation of reasoning for the genesis of that original system is historically inaccurate. Hence why I told you that before telling others to "read their history", you would do well to do so yourself.
I think before telling folks to read their history, perhaps you should take time to do so as well. The founding father's views on copyright/patents isn't as clear cut as your attributions make them out to be.
Jefferson himself sought to include protection from monopolies in the Bill of Rights. He viewed the importance of this in the same light as freedom of religion, speech, and the press. To be succinct about it, he originally sought to ban monopolies of all forms (including copyrights/patents).
Madison thought limited monopolies could be useful enough to not have an outright ban of them, but his reasoning was that limited monopolies had mitigating risks because the government they were constructing was a government of the many, not the few, and that the people would prevent those monopolies from becoming unlimited and abusive. Unfortunately as we see today, his logic did not hold and the interests of the few have indeed won out over the many.
FYI, the original term for copyrights and patents was 19 years. The length was proposed by Jefferson based off from actuarial data of the day.
So to surmise, Jefferson was against copyrights/patents because he viewed the risks as greater than the benefits. Madison viewed the risks as acceptable, given the framework of the government they were constructing.
Had Jefferson not compromised and Madison the foresight to the corruptibility of the representatives of the people, it's very possible copyrights and patents would *not* have been established.
Yes, and how exactly do you know what IS and ISN't being tapped, if there is no judicial oversight? How do you know what conversations and who is where, and what reason is there for the tap?
That's the problem with warrantless wiretapping, there's no accountability to make sure that what is being tapped is legal.
It's not about extending Constitutional rights to others, it's about making sure yours are protected right here at home.
Making something legal retroactively isn't always a bad thing.
Sometimes the laws themselves are the crime, not the act itself. If there is a bad law on the books and someone is prosecuted for it, then if the law is changed retroactively those people who were wronged by such bad law can receive at least some measure of justice. The law itself may be legal and may pass judicial muster; however it may still be a bad law.
I don't think that is the case with the teleco immunity. The laws that existed before weren't bad; they were (at least in theory) protecting the rights of citizens to privacy from government intrusion. That's a good thing. Providing retroactive immunity for violating those laws clearly isn't in the best interest of society.
Corporations shouldn't be a backdoor for any government agency to do a run-around on the Constitution. Which is exactly what this is all about.
Ultimately, Congress and the President can pass any law they want but it still has to pass Judicial muster. Even if the law attempts to remove the ability of the Judicial branch to rule on the subject, the law itself still has to pass Constitutional muster. If a law grants immunity and seeks to block the Judicial branch from being able to rule on the law, the law itself still cannot violate the Constitution. For example, if Congress passed a law granting the government employees immunity from murder and saying the courts cannot rule on any such cases, the law would still be illegal.
Even if the law is passed, the law itself can still be challenged in court and stuck down if it is determined to be unconstitutional.
While I favor free market, let's not go making utopias where none exist. The market hasn't done a very effective job in the US. Why?
Because it is expensive to build that infrastructure. In order to recoup costs, most providers ask for monopolies within a given area. In short, they are going to the *government* to be granted a market monopoly. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very free market at all.
So you might want to keep in mind, all that amazing broadband architecture will likely only happen if companies get the monopoly status they want.
Another fallacy is the idea that everyone competes for the "same" broadband market. For most of the US, there is no competition at all. So does the free market actually deliver a better solution or better prices, when you only have a single choice of a broadband provider available to you?
Paul's positions are often hard to get a full understanding from a quick browse at a website.
He is against the Federal Government deciding the issue. Although he is personally against abortion, he doesn't believe the Federal government has the authority to pass laws, and that any laws regarding abortion should happen at the State level. I disagree to an extent. There are individual rights involved, and it is the Federal governments job to protect and defend our rights and liberties, and adjudicate when conflicts arise.
As far as your skepticism against the idea of eliminating the Fed, do some research. Congress was charged with the responsibility of issuing currency to begin with based on the notion that banks, if they control the currency, act against the interests of the people.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing powers should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson
Yet despite the intent that Congress be responsible for the issuing of currency, and forewarnings against banks issuing currency, Congress passed (under dubious circumstances) the Federal Reserve Act. Essentially delegating their authority to a Board of Governors, appointed by *the President*, and currency issued by private banks. The very opposite of intent of the Constitution's empowerment of Congress for controlling currency.
Talk about a 180.
Lastly, to top it off, the Constitution says the only valid form of legal tender is gold and silver coin. Issuing paper currency, let alone removing the tie between that paper's value and gold, should have required a Constitutional amendment.
In short, just about everything about the Fed isn't constitutionally legal to begin with. Like much of the Federal government today, it is acting on authority which technically Congress didn't have the authority to grant to begin with, without actual honest to goodness amendments to the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree completely. If you want me to license the software, then I sign a contract at purchase time. None of this after the fact bullshit.
Actually, he is right, although the logic is a bit perverse and only because of a loophole Congress created in copyright law.
See, what the court ruled is that in Blizzard's case, you are *licensing* a copy. As such, you aren't the "owner" of the copy and therefore those protections don't apply.
Hence why so many software companies push "licenses", so they can have total control in saying what you can and can't do with the software. If you were the actual owner, you could tell them to take a hike.
Personally, I think the licensing loophole is a total crock of shit because it completely trumps uses of copyright works that would normally be considered legal. It is a dangerous exception and a slippery slope because it opens the door for extending licenses to other works.
Which, although I believe RMS is a bit extreme, is exactly what he has been warning about for quite some time.
I do agree with your assessment that the present judicial check is not optimal in dealing with those unconstitutional laws and policies. I was merely pointing out that the judicial system, in striking down such laws and policies when they do, is fulfilling it's duties in the system of checks and balances.
First, we are not legally at war, even though in practicality the US is. Congress authorized military force to support UN resolution, but did not do a Declaration of War. That's an important distinction, because it prevents the Executive branch from just declaring us at war ad infinitum and invoking wartime powers at their will and leisure.
So the President saying he was invoking his wartime powers as a basis for authorizing warrantless wiretapping is a non sequitur, since we legally aren't at war.
Second, your attempt to portray wiretaps as a military matter because of the source of the information doesn't fly. The source of the information doesn't matter, what matters is the act the Government is attempting to do. And if that act is wiretapping a US citizen, then the 4th kicks in. It isn't civilian judges ruling on military matters, it's civilian judges ruling on due process.
Now, as to whether civilian courts are the wrong approach for prosecuting terrorists, that's completely *irrelevant* for whether warrants need to be issued for *spying on Americans*. Congress created FISA specifically for the purpose of providing oversight for intelligence activities, with FISA courts providing oversight in instances where a US citizen may be under suspect.
To be clear: FISA did not prevent the gathering of information. Period. If it was an emergency, that act allowed for getting a warrant 72 hours *after* the wiretap. FISA approval for warrants borders on rubberstamping, the percentage is that high. So this nonsense of invoking Jefferson and implying that strict observance would have had some dire threat on self-preservation is just a total crock, since following the law would have had *the exact same result as not following it*.
Jefferson in that same letter:
"They do not go to the case of persons charged with petty duties, where consequences are trifling, and time allowed for a legal course, nor to authorize them to take such cases out of the written law. In these, the example of overleaping the law is of greater evil than a strict adherence to its imperfect provisions."
Jefferson pretty much laying out that if time allows, there's no reason to ignore written law. Given the 72 hour, after the fact warrants allowed by FISA in the first place, it's a hard sell trying to make the "dire threat" argument for overleaping law.
So what really occurred? My guess is that the Executive probably came to the decision they needed to do some type of mass invasive dragnet surveillance that would have been practically impossible from a warrant standpoint under FISA. Since going to Congress to ask for those powers would have brought that into the open, the Executive decided they would take the wartime powers position and just do it anyway. They probably didn't know specifically who or what they were looking for, just anything suspicious.
I believe the words you are looking for are "chilling effect".
Much as some people may dislike it, the fact is laws passed by Congress and policies set by the Executive branch have to pass Constitutional muster. That's part of the judicial branch's job, to ensure a check in the system to ensure the legislative and executive branches are acting within the constraints of the powers granted to those branches by the Constitution.
If the fourth amendment is too restrictive to deal with the realities of today's environment, then Congress is free to pursue modification through the process of Constitutional amendment. Until then, it is the duty of the judicial branch to uphold it as it stands.
Also, in reference to your privacy argument of terrorists vs. YouTube viewers, the Constitution grants and limits the powers of government. So while the government may be prohibited from performing a certain act, that doesn't mean it is applicable to individuals/corporations. If you think that is insane then I suggest you call your Congressman about the matter because that is where the problem lies, not in the judicial branch.
If you aren't in the same trade, then it's not a problem nor is it illicit.
For example, disney.usedcars. Unless Disney gets into the automotive business, there would be no trademark issue.
He's found the same amount, for $300 million less. :)
That's all true, however, the point being made is that companies are not selling/telling their customers this. They are advertising it as unlimited.
To build on the analogy, you can have unlimited beer but if we see you drinking more than a six beers a day we'll cap how much beer you can have. See how ridiculous that is?
Overselling is not unreasonable. Advertising as unlimited is.
Again, increasing shareholder value isn't the reason nations/states charter corporations. The nation/state benefits from the works produced by corporations, the increases in wealth of it's citizens employed by corporations, and the wealth distribution though taxation for improving public services.
When corporations work under the sole mandate of maximizing shareholder wealth, then naturally they will minimize whatever possible to do so, even if it is detrimental to the nation/states that chartered them to begin with and even possibly to it's own long-term survival.
Corporations are not merely vehicles the nation/state creates for the purpose of wealth redistribution; as you pointed out the nation/state is capable of doing that on their own. They are meant to be vehicles to produce works and create wealth for the nation/state.
Make no mistake, corporations are a construction of nations/states and their citizens. As such, it is the best interest of the nation/state to ensure that the mandates under which corporations are chartered and operate serve the nation/state and it's citizens. To do otherwise defeats the purpose of the construct to begin with.
In a manner of speaking, yes. However, corporations have a fascist intent inherently for the most part. Nations and states provide legal frameworks for corporations to exist as entities, for the purpose of promoting progress and advancement that will benefit the nation/state and it's citizens.
When governed properly, corporations fulfill that intent very, very well. Nations/states, their citizens, and corporations all benefit. What the article is pointing out is that without proper governance, corporations may seek to enrich themselves at the expense of nations/states and their citizens.
As nations and states (and by extension it's citizens) in essence create corporations through their laws with the intent of benefiting from the works of those corporations, if those works do not benefit said nation/state (or even become detrimental) it logically follows that such inequity will be corrected by redefining corporations and changing it's laws.
The article is highlighting what the actual intent of corporations is, to enrich the nation/state and it's citizens which chartered it, not to merely increase corporate shareholder value. As such, it is not only reasonable but completely logical that corporate law reflect that intent and not perversed in such a way as to undermine the original purpose.
Oui, Oui.
RTFA. Instead of making inflammatory accusations.
That's all great, but can it wash Windows?
Err, no. Violating a EULA is not the same as violating the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license, it outlines how the software may be *distributed*. A EULA is a contract for use.
If you violate the EULA, then you forgo the rights to use the software. If you still use it, you aren't violating any copyright because you haven't *distributed* anything.
Which is where this case should go cold. It's a fairly ludicrous argument to claim that running the software constitutes distribution.
As much as some companies want it to be, copyright isn't about copying. It's about distribution, and for distribution to occur you must give a copy to a third party.
Lol, they most certainly are *NOT CLEAN*.
What a rather twisted bit of logic. Because the US isn't oppressive in it's own backyard, it is therefore not oppressive even if it supports governments that are. Sorry, but that logic doesn't fly. You are supporting oppression, where you are supporting it doesn't matter. Oppression by proxy is no less a sin then doing it firsthand.
A prime example of what is wrong with the US, when people are under the perception that the Constitution *grants* rights.
Your right, we just prop up *OTHER GOVERNMENTS THAT DO THAT*. Our hands are clean.
My point is to address this statement of yours:
"Our founding fathers were NOT stupid! They were painfully aware of examples in which the works of individuals were grabbed immediately "for the good of society". And it doesn't work."
If you were indeed aware of the history, then you would not have made such a statement. That implies that the founding fathers established limited monopolies because they knew that not having them "doesn't work". Which is COMPLETELY the polar opposite from which their lines of thinking were drawing from. The founding fathers were of the mind to BAN ALL monopolies, and they did exactly that with only a *small and limited* exception (begrudgingly at that). They absolutely believed that it "would work" not having any monopolies at all.
In short, your representations that the founding fathers established copyright and patents because they understood it *had* to exist for the good of society isn't actually the reason they were established. It was to provide an incentive, but wasn't actually in their view a necessity for society.
I am not blaming the original system for anything, merely pointing out that your representation of reasoning for the genesis of that original system is historically inaccurate. Hence why I told you that before telling others to "read their history", you would do well to do so yourself.
If I was a lawyer, I would feel the need to 'hide' my conversations from anyone except those who I am conversing with.
I think before telling folks to read their history, perhaps you should take time to do so as well. The founding father's views on copyright/patents isn't as clear cut as your attributions make them out to be.
Jefferson himself sought to include protection from monopolies in the Bill of Rights. He viewed the importance of this in the same light as freedom of religion, speech, and the press. To be succinct about it, he originally sought to ban monopolies of all forms (including copyrights/patents).
Madison thought limited monopolies could be useful enough to not have an outright ban of them, but his reasoning was that limited monopolies had mitigating risks because the government they were constructing was a government of the many, not the few, and that the people would prevent those monopolies from becoming unlimited and abusive. Unfortunately as we see today, his logic did not hold and the interests of the few have indeed won out over the many.
FYI, the original term for copyrights and patents was 19 years. The length was proposed by Jefferson based off from actuarial data of the day.
So to surmise, Jefferson was against copyrights/patents because he viewed the risks as greater than the benefits. Madison viewed the risks as acceptable, given the framework of the government they were constructing.
Had Jefferson not compromised and Madison the foresight to the corruptibility of the representatives of the people, it's very possible copyrights and patents would *not* have been established.
Yes, and how exactly do you know what IS and ISN't being tapped, if there is no judicial oversight? How do you know what conversations and who is where, and what reason is there for the tap?
That's the problem with warrantless wiretapping, there's no accountability to make sure that what is being tapped is legal.
It's not about extending Constitutional rights to others, it's about making sure yours are protected right here at home.
Making something legal retroactively isn't always a bad thing.
Sometimes the laws themselves are the crime, not the act itself. If there is a bad law on the books and someone is prosecuted for it, then if the law is changed retroactively those people who were wronged by such bad law can receive at least some measure of justice. The law itself may be legal and may pass judicial muster; however it may still be a bad law.
I don't think that is the case with the teleco immunity. The laws that existed before weren't bad; they were (at least in theory) protecting the rights of citizens to privacy from government intrusion. That's a good thing. Providing retroactive immunity for violating those laws clearly isn't in the best interest of society.
Corporations shouldn't be a backdoor for any government agency to do a run-around on the Constitution. Which is exactly what this is all about.
Ultimately, Congress and the President can pass any law they want but it still has to pass Judicial muster. Even if the law attempts to remove the ability of the Judicial branch to rule on the subject, the law itself still has to pass Constitutional muster. If a law grants immunity and seeks to block the Judicial branch from being able to rule on the law, the law itself still cannot violate the Constitution. For example, if Congress passed a law granting the government employees immunity from murder and saying the courts cannot rule on any such cases, the law would still be illegal.
Even if the law is passed, the law itself can still be challenged in court and stuck down if it is determined to be unconstitutional.
While I favor free market, let's not go making utopias where none exist. The market hasn't done a very effective job in the US. Why?
Because it is expensive to build that infrastructure. In order to recoup costs, most providers ask for monopolies within a given area. In short, they are going to the *government* to be granted a market monopoly. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound very free market at all.
So you might want to keep in mind, all that amazing broadband architecture will likely only happen if companies get the monopoly status they want.
Another fallacy is the idea that everyone competes for the "same" broadband market. For most of the US, there is no competition at all. So does the free market actually deliver a better solution or better prices, when you only have a single choice of a broadband provider available to you?
Hmm.
Paul's positions are often hard to get a full understanding from a quick browse at a website.
He is against the Federal Government deciding the issue. Although he is personally against abortion, he doesn't believe the Federal government has the authority to pass laws, and that any laws regarding abortion should happen at the State level. I disagree to an extent. There are individual rights involved, and it is the Federal governments job to protect and defend our rights and liberties, and adjudicate when conflicts arise.
As far as your skepticism against the idea of eliminating the Fed, do some research. Congress was charged with the responsibility of issuing currency to begin with based on the notion that banks, if they control the currency, act against the interests of the people.
I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.... The issuing powers should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson
Yet despite the intent that Congress be responsible for the issuing of currency, and forewarnings against banks issuing currency, Congress passed (under dubious circumstances) the Federal Reserve Act. Essentially delegating their authority to a Board of Governors, appointed by *the President*, and currency issued by private banks. The very opposite of intent of the Constitution's empowerment of Congress for controlling currency.
Talk about a 180.
Lastly, to top it off, the Constitution says the only valid form of legal tender is gold and silver coin. Issuing paper currency, let alone removing the tie between that paper's value and gold, should have required a Constitutional amendment.
In short, just about everything about the Fed isn't constitutionally legal to begin with. Like much of the Federal government today, it is acting on authority which technically Congress didn't have the authority to grant to begin with, without actual honest to goodness amendments to the Constitution.