What would be an example of a legislative decision about copyright terms that isn't within Constitutional bounds?
Some judicial dueling ....
Ginsberg, in the "Majority" opinion:
And as we observe there is no cause to suspect that a purpose to evade "limited Times" prescription prompted Congress to adopt the CTEA.Breyer, in his erudite dissent:
I am not certain why the Court considers it relevant in this respect that nothing . . . warrants construction of the 1998 Act's 20-year term extension as a congressional attempt to evade or override the "limited Times" con- straint.Of course Congress did not intend to act unconstitutionally. But it may have sought to test the Constitution's limits. After all, the statute was named after a Member of Congress, who, the legislative history records, wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. ... [Breyer cites statements of and attributions to Rep. Sonny Bono] ... statement of Rep. Hoke: "Why 70 years? Why not forever? Why not 150 years?" ... The Songwriters Guild suggested a perpetual term ... statement of Quincy Jones, "I'm particularly fascinated with Representative Hoke's statement, '[W]hy not forever?' ... [etc.]
And the statute ended up creating a term so long that were the vesting of 19th-century real property at issue it would typically violate the traditional rule against perpetuities. [That is the] traditional rule that estate must vest, if at all, within lives in being plus 21 years [The] modern statutory perpetuity term of 90 years, 5 years shorter than 95-year copyright terms.