Date of Publication:
Ann Piccard, Justiciability of All Human Rights: Scottish Independence As Redress for British Human Rights Abuses, 24 Fla. J. Int'l L. 333 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase, Watch Out for the Bus: Tales of Cross-Training, Teams, and Rotating Duties in an Academic Law Library, in 5Partnerships and New Roles in the 21st-Century Academic Library: Collaborating, Embedding, and Cross Training for the Future (Bradford Lee Eden ed., Creating the 21st-Century Academic Library, Rowman & Littlefield, 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
James W. Fox, Book Review, The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship. Kurt. T. Lash, 30 Const. Comment. 567 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
In this essay I review Kurt Lash’s The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship. Lash has written perhaps the most important work to date on the background of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges or Immunities Clause. This essay summarizes the basic insights and arguments of the book and then presents a critique of it on two levels. First, it argues that the background of the Privileges or Immunities Clause is more ambiguous than Lash suggests and that this background does not support Lash’s rejection of natural rights interpretations of the Clause. Second, and more fundamentally, the essay argues that Lash — consistent with some other contemporary originalists — assumes an overly narrow concept of the historical public in his pursuit of the public meaning behind the Clause. Given the formal and informal exclusions of women and minorities from public discourse and decision-making, it is impossible to speak of a unitary “public.” We should consider instead how to identify and incorporate multiple publics and to consider what such a multi-public or counterpublic approach to historical meanings might look like.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Corporate Democracy from Say on Pay to Say on Politics, 30 Const. Comment. 431 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
The President of the Business Roundtable once infamously said that “corporations were never designed to be democracies…” American courts respectfully disagree and have repeatedly held that the democratic rights of shareholders are sacrosanct. The context for the Business Roundtable President’s comment was the battle over say on pay — a battle the Business Roundtable lost in the United States with the passage of the financial reform legislation known as Dodd-Frank.
As I will explain in this piece, courts’ robust conception of corporate democracy rights for shareholders should protect both shareholders’ ability to have a say on pay and say on politics. Say on pay is the practice in United States, among other nations, of mandating a non-binding shareholder vote on executive compensation at publicly traded firms. A shareholders’ say on politics does not yet exist in America. But theoretically, just as say on pay mandates shareholder democracy in the case of executive remuneration, say on politics would require shareholders to vote on corporate political spending. Binding say on politics votes already exist in the U.K.
Critiques of say on pay and say on politics have been couched as constitutional objections based on either the Tenth or First Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. But at their heart, these objections seem less rooted in the text of the Constitution and more inspired by a cribbed conception of shareholders’ corporate voting rights. To untangle who has the stronger legal argument requires a review of how American courts have conceptualized “corporate democracy.” I conclude that as framed by key courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and the Delaware state courts, “corporate democracy” is a capacious enough concept to justify both shareholders’ say on pay and say on politics.
Date of Publication:
Elizabeth Ippolito Boals, State v. Sanchez: Case File and Teaching Guide (2nd ed., NITA, 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ashley Krenelka Chase, Legal Research Using Google Scholar, in 2Google in Libraries: Research, User Applications, and Networking (Carol Smallwood ed., Rowman & Littlefield, 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner, International Environmental Law, 49 American Bar Association Section of International Law Year in Review 339 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli et al., Administrative Law: Cases and Materials (7th ed., 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Royal C. Gardner et al., Science and Policy of U.S. Wetlands, 29 Tulane Envtl. L. Journal 31 (2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Louis J. Virelli et al., Administrative Law: Cases and Materials: Teacher’s Manual (7th ed., 2015)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.