Petitioners do not challenge the life-plus-70-years time span itself. Whether 50 years is enough, or 70 years too much, they acknowledge, is not a judgment meet for this Court. Congress went awry, petitioners maintain, not with respect to newly created works, but in enlarging the term for published works with existing copyrights. The Limited Time in effect when a copyright is secured, petitioners urge, becomes the constitutional boundary, a clear line beyond the power of Congress to extend.To me and also it seems in some regard to the Justices dissenting this is an ex post facto law, even a theft.
Oh, that's just great. So Congress cannot change its own laws? Having passed a ten-year program of tax cuts last year, it will now be an ex post facto law if Congress votes now to accelerate these tax cuts, or extend them, or make them permanent? After all, this is people's property we're talking about. Last year Congress said you could keep your money until 2012, and now Bush wants them to make that permanent. How dare they? Your money belongs to the public after 2012; just ask the Democrats.
I am surprised that such an argument made it to the Supreme Court. The idea that the Congress cannot amend its own laws is ludicrous.