Difference between revisions of "Wheaton v. Peters"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (bold)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
In '''''Wheaton v. Peters''''', 33 U.S. (8 Pet.) 591, 668 (1834), the unanimous [[U.S. Supreme Court]] held that "no reporter has or can have any copyright in the written opinions delivered by this Court ...."
+
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?
−
 
 
−
This case arose when one of the Court's official reporters was asserting copyright protection for his annotated compilations of Supreme Court opinions. The Court distinguished between the reporter's individual work and the Justices' opinions.  that statutes were never copyrighted. Based on the acknowledged and incontestable analogy with legislative acts, Wheaton held unanimously that "the law" in the form of judicial opinions may not be copyrighted.
 
−
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
 
−
[[category:Copyright Clause]]
 

Revision as of 01:40, May 2, 2011

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Wheaton_v._Peters&oldid=865582"