Live data from Hacker News

H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

eff.org

141–143 of 143 posts

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#141
post #7

[flagged]

No surprise that you'd show up to shill for it.Your argument boils down to 'if it looks like an executive branch agency, then the Executive branch should have control over it' rather than accepting that Congress is free to set things up as it sees fit within the Constitutional constraints.

> accepting that Congress is free to set things up as it sees fit within the Constitutional constraints.

The unitary-executive crowd worships a golden calf, namely the first three words of Article 2: "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

One could argue that the "executive Power" is whatever the Congress says it is. Suppose that a future Congress were to decide that the president is to be, basically, the butler for the federal government — think Mr. Carson on Downton Abbey, in charge of the household staff but still very much a servant himself — with of course the other specifically-enumerated presidential powers (read: duties) in the remainder of Article 2. It's hard to say in advance that such a hypothetical congressional action would be categorically inconsistent with the Framers' intentions.

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article doesn't mention parties because it's irrelevant. A bad bill is bad on its merits, not because of who has brought it about.

For those of us at home who need to decide which team to root for its very much relevant when and what bills a party sponsors.

Is there truly that much remaining to consider before marking your next ballot?

Re: H.R. 6028 would fundamentally change the U.S. Copyright Office

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. In the US traditionally the House Reps are referred to as congressmen (unlike the rest of the world) and the Senate, senators. So sometimes Congress is shorthand for the House. Though I agree it shouldn’t be.

This is false. Traditionally , when only one chamber of Congress passes a bill, headlines explicitly state which chamber. "The House passed a bill that..." or "The Senate passes a bill that..." The OP is correct that Congress implies both chambers. Yes, "Congressman" or "Congresswoman" refers to House members. But the headline says "Congress".

It’s not false and I already explained why. You choose to ignore the social usage.
Post reply on HN