Oh, I don't disagree that they change or amend the constitution. My point was that you can't read into a theoretical ramification of an interpretation of an am

Oh, I don't disagree that they change or amend the constitution. My point was that you can't read into a theoretical ramification of an interpretation of an amendment to overrule the plain meaning of the text of the constitution. Edit: I’m a little zonked out on cold meds, but I believe if I were to go back to my legal days, the relevant canon of construction in statutory interpretation is ‘repeal by implication,’ if anyone’s curious about this idea of how we square two ideas that may be partially opposed. The basic principle is that courts will be unlikely to repeal something just because another part of the law implies it’s no longer valid. IIRC there’s some thought that subsequent laws in subsequent legislative sessions carry more weight towards a repeal, so that would be in favor of repeal in the case of the amendment. But it’s still pretty uncommon, and highly discouraged. And in this case, I think when you have a plainly written passage enshrining the right of congress to enact Copyright-esque laws, you’d need some clear language to remove the clause. The 21st is a good example, but you wouldn’t need to be that explicit. Pretty unrelated, but for those looking to argue about IP law on a constitutional basis, look at the congressional authority to enact trademark legislation. Unlike Copyright and Patent, which is an enumerated right, federal trademark law (the Lanham Act) is all based on the commerce clause. The commerce clause just being a broad clause on interstate commerce. It’s much weaker, and fun to pay attention to since the strength of the commerce clause waxes and wanes with the Supreme Court. Anyways, I hope someone enjoyed this cold medicine fuled aside.