So long story short, even if tzs is correct I don't think that means that khanna is wrong, as his interpretation of the constitution doesn't depending on the 'sciences' part in any way. In fact, the way he is using 'sciences' seems to be consistent with the way tzs defines it.
The point 'tzs was making is that the purpose the framers had in ratifying the copyright clause was essentially the same purpose to which it is applied today. Khanna's point is that it has been warped towards a purpose other than the framers had in mind, which again does not in fact appear to be correct.
"Khanna's point is that it has been warped towards a purpose other than the framers had in mind, which again does not in fact appear to be correct."
I guess I still don't see how you're getting that. Khanna's criticism of the current copyright law is that it is being used to enrich creators rather than to maximize innovation. TZS's comment is about what can be copyrighted or patented, which Khanna never takes issue with.
What specifically do you think he is wrong about with regards to his interpretation of the constitution?
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/an-anti-ip-turn-for-t...
tzs is probably correct, but he was actually responding to this:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4862752
(His comment is here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4862752)
So long story short, even if tzs is correct I don't think that means that khanna is wrong, as his interpretation of the constitution doesn't depending on the 'sciences' part in any way. In fact, the way he is using 'sciences' seems to be consistent with the way tzs defines it.