When business owners create a corporation as the means of carrying out their business, they create a distinct legal entity with rights, obligations, privileges and liabilities that are different from the individuals who set up the corporation. This generally works to the benefit of the individual owners, which is why people choose to incorporate in the first place. And it means that certain rights specific to individuals do not carry over to the corporate form.
You are here
Articles & Commentary
Even if the justices remain reluctant to lift their ban on cameras, there's no reason for them to block a live audio feed of their oral arguments. They already provide one for members of the Supreme Court Bar in the court's “Lawyers' Lounge.” Why not provide that same service to everyone else?
For decades, debates over the Constitution divided along familiar lines. Progressives professed faith in a "living Constitution," while conservatives claimed fidelity to originalism. In recent Terms, however, this dynamic has changed. The Court's progressive wing - led first by Justice John Paul Stevens and, since his retirement, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and aided by leading academics and practitioners - have begun to stake their own claim to the Constitution's text and history.
Most Americans think we need less money in politics, not more; less corruption and dependence on special interests, not more. Proposals by Senator Mitch McConnell and others to scrap limits on campaign contributions and allow politicians to solicit unlimited donations are wildly out of step with this common-sense view held by the people. They are also contrary to the wisdom of our Nation’s Founders.
But the Constitution tells us in no uncertain terms that equality is not to be apportioned based on popularity or political convenience. The courts should not shy away from applying the Constitution's guarantee of equality under the law; and, in fact, there are currently lawsuits pending in at least ten states that cite to the Constitution's guarantee of equality in an effort to overturn state limitations on marriage for same-sex couples. As these cases wind their way through the court system, the question of whether the Constitution guarantees a right to marriage equality that applies across the US could end up right back at the high court.
Specifically, the “inching right” sound-bite overlooks the most obvious, and potentially seismic, current influence on the Supreme Court’s conservative bloc. This is the recent surge of libertarianism among conservative academics, advocates, politicians and, of course, voters. For decades, and as recently as Barack Obama’s first year in the White House, libertarians were marginalized within the conservative pantheon. Now they rival, and in important areas threaten to displace social conservatives and big-government conservatives.
Lessig’s interactive treasure trove of founding-era material used technology unimaginable to Madison or Benjamin Franklin — but it contains the key to understanding how the framers of our Constitution understood political corruption and what sort of corruption they wanted the federal government to fight against. Justices who profess to be faithful to the Constitution’s original meaning cannot ignore these findings. Just as anti-corruption principles shaped the design of the Constitution, the court should uphold the power of the federal government to establish aggregate limits on campaign contributions to combat corruption.
Bipartisanship broke out in Washington last week. Thanks to a bit of statesmanship by Senators including John McCain (R-AZ), the Senate confirmed several of President's Obama's longest- waiting Executive Branch nominees and thereby made it unnecessary for Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to carry out a change to Senate rules to prevent filibusters over these nominees. Senator Reid's plan to change the Senate filibuster rules by a simple majority vote (rather than the two-thirds majority typically required for rules changes) has been threatened by both parties, but never executed.