[conspire] Book Burning continues thanks to the Feds

[Rick Moen]

Quoting Ruben Safir (ruben at mrbrklyn.com):

> > Oh really?
> > 
> > Tell me why a a municipal bond is property despite being an exclusive
> > grant.  Tell me why mineral rights are property despite being an
> > exclusive grant.  
> 
> Because Bonds are covered under the Comerce and Property part of the US
> Constitution and Copyright is a SEPERATE part of the US Consitution and
> they have different properties.

There is nothing about bonds anywhere in the Constitution.  (You ignored
mineral rights, by the way.)

Strictly speaking, copyrights aren't mentioned by name, either, but 
Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 does grant Congress the
right 

  To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing
  for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right 
  to their respective Writings and Discoveries,

without which, patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets would
be matters of _state_-level law only, outside the powers of the Federal
government in accordance with the Tenth Amendment reservation of powers
to the states and to the people.

There is no such thing as a 'Commerce and Property part of the US
Constitution'.  There _is_ a Commerce Clause, Constitution Article I,
Section 8, Clause 3, granting Congress power

  To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several
  States, and with the Indian Tribes,

without which regulation of commerce would be a matter of _state_-level
law only, outside the powers of the Federal government in accordance
with the Tenth Amendment reservation of powers to the states and to the
people.  However, that fact, in turn, is completely and utterly
irrelevant to the reasons why bonds (and mineral rights, etc.) are
_property_:  As I've already mentioned, we call them property because
they behave like property.  Because they behave, in those respects, 
the same way copyrights do, for the same reasons.  Thus my point.

Do you get it, yet?

And, Ruben, you really shouldn't argue about the law before you
understand it.