The U.S. economy is a hybrid composed of both capitalist and socialist principles. Because of this, the economy is best described as being a managed economy. A managed economy is a non-market economy in which the government has influence over price determination and the distribution of goods and services. Due to the large federal presence in business, corporations often lobby for politicians whose agenda aligns with their profit margins. In this pursuit of political backing, a phenomenon emerges called corporate personhood. Corporate personhood is the idea that human rights, as outlined in the Bill of Rights, are extended to corporations. These rights include the right to contribute to political campaigns, to exempt themselves from certain …show more content…
history. Most notably, when the 14th Amendment was ratified. Former U.S. Senator Roscoe Conkling argued that the “equal protection under the law” applied to corporations as well. Senator Conkling’s efforts were cited in many cases thereafter, and in the 1906 Hale v. Henkel case, it was ruled that corporations are to be protected from “unreasonable search and seizure” citing the Fourth Amendment but not from self-incrimination cited in Fifth Amendment. Since then, the issue of what rights corporations do and do not have, most importantly the right to contribute to campaigns, has been repeatedly brought to the Supreme Court. Although facing clear opposition, there has been a general ruling that corporations are protected by the First Amendment, and that limiting corporate campaign donations is impeding upon free speech. In the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, Citizens United, a conservative, corporate-backed political action committee, was able to successfully argue that limits on corporate independent expenditures are unconstitutional. In appeal to this, the SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission ruling struck down existing federal limitations. The Federal Election Committee implemented Super PACS in response, which allow individuals to accept unlimited contributions from people, unions, and …show more content…
Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), for-profit organizations are required to provide preventative healthcare, including contraception, to employees. The Green family, who represents Hobby Lobby, sued the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, in challenge of the contraception requirement of this healthcare bill. They argued that the requirement violated the First Amendment and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff and granted exemption to some corporations on behalf of their religious affiliation. Burwell v. Hobby Lobby solidified the notion that corporations, like people, can exercise their religious beliefs. The opposition argued that corporations are not people whose religious liberty can be violated, and that denying employees the contraception they would otherwise be entitled to violates their own rights. This ruling has opened the door for corporations in recent times, and has set a precedent that will be emulated as other corporations exercise their court granted
In the Lexington, Kentucky a drug operation occurred at an apartment complex. Police officers of Lexington, Kentucky followed a suspected drug dealer into an apartment complex. The officers smelled marijuana outside the door of one of the apartments, as they knocked loudly the officers announced their presence. There were noises coming from the inside of the apartment; the officers believed that the noises were as the sound of destroying evidence. The officers stated that they were about to enter the apartment and kicked the apartment door in in order to save the save any evidence from being destroyed. Once the officer enters the apartment; there the respondent and others were found. The officers took the respondent and the other individuals that were in the apartment into custody. The King and the
II. Trial Court Ruling. The district court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim. The plaintiff’s retaliation claim went to trial, but the court excluded evidence regarding the alleged sexual harassment. The court refused to grant the plaintiff a new trial. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s ruling.
In January of 2010, the United States Supreme Court, in the spirit of free speech absolutism, issued its landmark Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, marking a radical shift in campaign finance law. This ruling—or what some rightfully deem a display of judicial activism on the part of the Roberts Court and what President Obama warned would “open the floodgates for special interests—including foreign corporations—to spend without limit in…elections” —effectively and surreptitiously overturned Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and portions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, struck down the corporate spending limits imposed by Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, and extended free speech rights to corporations. The purpose of this paper is to provide a brief historical overview of campaign finance law in the United States, outline the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling, and to examine the post-Citizens United political landscape.
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states that the State shall not deprive any person equal protection of the laws. When equal protection is guaranteed, the outcome must be fair; in other words, substantive justice must be present. Based on this interpretation, McCleskey v. Kemp should be overturned because McCleskey’s death was a racially biased and unfair outcome that was not constitutionally protected by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Justice Blackmun wrote in his dissenting opinion that in order for McCleskey to prove his innocence and the presence of a racially discriminatory criminal sentencing procedure, he had to meet a three-factor standard. First, he had to prove he was a member of a group that has historically suffered differential treatment. Second, McCleskey had to establish the extent of this treatment. Last, he had to prove that the process by which the death penalty was chosen was open to racial bias. McCleskey met all three prongs of this standard, and even though the Court’s decision denied his claim that he was not guaranteed equal protection, there is enough evidence to prove the selection process was not racially neutral and that a violation of the 14th Amendment was present. Furthermore, Justice Kennedy’s idea of “evolving standards of decency” in Roper v. Simmons (2005) demonstrates that the growing national consensus is against the death penalty and therefore in favor of equal protection for all persons.
The Schenck case in the early 1900s dealt with the freedom of speech as it related to the draft of World War I. Charles Schenck sent mass mail that stated “the draft was a monstrous wrong motivated by the capitalist system” (Schenck v. United States). The federal government found this to be in violation of the Clear and Present Danger Test as well as the Espionage Act and arrested Schenck for his actions. The case proceeded to the Supreme Court and was ruled in favor of the United States unanimously. The opinion of the court violates the free speech clause as well as a right to have peaceful protest by denying Schenck to share his opinions of the draft with others despite the opinion of the government on this action. Due to these violations the ruling on the Schneck v. United States case should be overturned in order to protect the right of free speech and protest to all citizens.
The Ontario Provincial Police serve the province of Ontario in many functions, including the safety of traffic (Ontario Provincial Police , 2009). The safety of traffic is essential for a secure society; however when a law enforcement member deviates from legislated policing practices causing an unjustified accusation of a civilian, are the people of the Province of Ontario any safer? This issue can be examined in the case of R. v. Harrison, as Constable Bertoncello of the Ontario Provincial Police conducted a traffic stop of Bradley Harrison, which was not justified. Harrison was pulled over for only having a rear licence plate, however the vehicle was registered in the province of Alberta, making this vehicle legal (R. v. Harrison, 2009). The police officer justified his actions to the Supreme Court of Canada by insisting on the importance of upholding police integrity in the public mind, and this regular traffic stop resulted in a search and seizure of cocaine and a charge of driving with a suspended licence. (R. v. Harrison, 2009).This was not sufficient reasoning for Bertoncello’s actions according to the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. An examination of the evidence presented before the Supreme Court of Canada in the case of R. v. Harrison, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms violations, precedent cases, and investigative police procedures along with legal proceedings will rationalize the ruling of the court for excluding narcotic paraphernalia for trafficking indictment.
On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the authority to restrict the use and sale of contraceptives. Though it is not contraceptives, anymore, that is at the heart of the abortion debate, this ruling was the first step to the expectation of constitutional privacy.
Campaign finance reform has a broad history in America. In particular, campaign finance has developed extensively in the past forty years, as the courts have attempted to create federal elections that best sustain the ideals of a representative democracy. In the most recent Supreme Court decision concerning campaign finance, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court essentially decided to treat corporations like individuals by allowing corporations to spend money on federal elections through unlimited independent expenditures. In order to understand how the Supreme Court justified this decision, however, the history of campaign finance in regards to individuals must be examined. At the crux of these campaign finance laws is the balancing of two democratic ideals: the ability of individuals to exercise their right to free speech, and the avoidance of corrupt practices by contributors and candidates. An examination of these ideals, as well as the effectiveness of the current campaign finance system in upholding these ideas, will provide a basic framework for the decision of Citizens United v. FEC.
It’s a privately held corporation that is owned by a group of devout Evangelical Christians. The case of Hobby Lobby vs. Burwell, surrounds around the Affordable Care Act and contraception. Hobby Lobby claimed the government “cannot require businesses to provide drugs that terminate a fertilized egg if they object on religious grounds” (Fox New 2014). Hobby Lobby stated that they would pay for 16/20 contraceptives offered under the Affordable Care Act, but would not offer the four that terminated a possible fertilized fetus, as it went against their religious beliefs and religious liberty. Hobby Lobby also appealed that they have provided contraception to women for years even before the Affordable Care Act. In the end, the Supreme Court recently ruled by a 5 to 4 vote that Hobby Lobby had the right to limit what contraceptives are offered in their employee’s health care plan on religious grounds. The decision was ultimately based around the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which states that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification”(Tannahill 2012). In other words, Hobby Lobby was going to be burdened with federal fines for not following the law stated under the Affordable Care Act. What also compelled the Supreme Courts’ decision was that Non-Profit Organizations were already exempt
At first glance, it seems implausible the word democracy isn't written in the United States Constitution, or in the Preamble of the Constitution, or even in the Declaration of Independence. One would assume a concept so paramount to modern American culture would surely be derived from one of its oldest and most endeared documents. Alas, it is not. The Constitution only specifically mentions two entities, the government and “We the People”. Defining government is an easy enough task, but who are “We the People”? Originally consisting of only white male property owners, eventually adding in other races, income classes, women, and astonishingly, corporations, the definition of “We the People” has evolved numerous times. Corporation is another key term the architects of our government failed to define for us, perhaps that is why it found its way into the phrase “We the People”. A grave dilemma lies in this fallible defining of terms. Granting corporations person-hood legislatively shifts the power of democracy from human interests to corporate interests. This corrosion of human interest can clearly be noted when examining the battle over corporate power highlighted in the court cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, and United States v. Sourapas and Crest Beverage Company.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Separate but equal, judicial review, and the Miranda Rights are decisions made by the Supreme Court that have impacted the United States in history altering ways. Another notable decision was made in the Tinker v. Des Moines Case. Ultimately the Supreme Court decided that the students in the case should have their rights protected and that the school acted unconstitutionally. Justice Fortas delivered a compelling majority opinion. In the case of Tinker v Des Moines, the Supreme Court’s majority opinion was strongly supported with great reasoning but had weaknesses that could present future problems.
A corporation was originally designed to allow for the forming of a group to get a single project done, after which it would be disbanded. At the end of the Civil War, the 14th amendment was passed in order to protect the rights of former slaves. At this point, corporate lawyers worked to define a corporation as a “person,” granting them the right to life, liberty and property. Ever since this distinction was made, corporations have become bigger and bigger, controlling many aspects of the economy and the lives of Americans. Corporations are not good for America because they outsource jobs, they lie and deceive, and they knowingly make and sell products that can harm people and animals, all in order to raise profits.
Money is power, and we live in a capitalist society; possessing a great number of money comes with a large amount of power, and one could do just about anything with the two. As of 2011, corporations hold $2 trillion. Corporate elites own most of the money in America, thus giving them control. A corporate elite is the owner, director and senior executive of the largest and most important of a nation's business corporations. A corporation is a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law Corporations were initially created by the people, and for the people.
The Constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” (U.S. Const, Amend I). While forcing businesses to provide birth control is not a direct violation of this part of the First Amendment, it is still a violation. Religious freedom is not limited to churches, mosques or other religious organizations, nor is it limited to acts of worship (Rivkin and Wheland). Therefore it seems fitting that corporations should be able to live out their beliefs on contraceptives. Another piece of legislation that this violates is the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The goal of this act was to protect against government actions that would target or burden religious activities or practices (Rivkin and Wheland). It is clear that forcing businesses to cover something tha...