4 ms·
The problem with this approach is that copyright laws are strictly Federal issues. It's one of the few powers that is explicitly granted to the Federal governme
by Finster 13y ago
The problem with this approach is that copyright laws are strictly Federal issues. It's one of the few powers that is explicitly granted to the Federal government. Where one could make an argument that states ought to regulate things like education or health care, you simply cannot make that argument for copyright. If we wanted states to be able to make laws regarding copyright we would need a Constitutional amendment.
- icebraining 13y agoThe US Constitution allows the Federal government to manage copyright; it doesn't force it, so you could still make the case that it shouldn't (just not on Constitutional grounds).
- Finster 13y agoTrue. Congress could pass legislation allowing states to manage copyright. I won't be holding my breath for Congress to vote itself less power.
- anigbrowl 13y agoFrom a legal scholarship standpoint, that would be an improper delegation of Congressional authority; it's part of the job description if you like, and thus an assignment of responsibility as much as facility. The word 'shall' is construed in law as a mandatory assignment, as opposed to saying Congress 'may' do something (ie if it feels like it).
- icebraining 13y agoWell, it says "shall have Power", not shall do X. But I'm certainly no constitutional scholar.
- btown 13y agoI would imagine that they would see state legislature seats as a springboard to legitimize the party on a national stage, not as an end in themselves.