The Nearest Hippie

Author(s):  
Joe Rollins
Keyword(s):  

This chapter analyzes dissenting opinions from the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in Windsor and Obergefell. Although the procreation argument was used sparingly by the Court, it does appear in modest form. More important are the justices’ uses of the themes of power, privilege, and liberty to justify maintaining the silences surrounding their antigay animus. For the dissenting justices the Court’s rulings in both cases signify an expansion of “We the People” that is unacceptable, a move from which they explicitly distance themselves and represent themselves as victims of a powerful minority. Their masculine heterosexual privilege was compromised, and the dissenting justices took it personally.

Ethics ◽  
1994 ◽  
Vol 104 (3) ◽  
pp. 446-466 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miriam Galston ◽  
William A. Galston
Keyword(s):  

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 79
Author(s):  
Anna M. Cox

The Senatorial practice of the filibuster has a long history of being an established fixture in the U.S. Senate. The filibuster, a senatorial tool and tactic of extended or unlimited debate has a constitutional basis, reason and purpose. The filibuster when implemented in accordance with its constitutional basis can maintain the checks and balance of governmental institutions, preserve true representation of “We the People”, protect the individual liberties of the American citizen and the rights of the minority. Thus without the preservation of the filibuster the Senate’s ability to conduct their legislative and representative responsibilities on the behalf of their constituents they represent would be in severe jeopardy. Consequently, the Senate must take the position of doing its due diligence to preserve and sustain the fundamental practice of the filibuster for the American citizenry for whom they represent. 


Author(s):  
Chaihark Hahm ◽  
Sung Ho Kim
Keyword(s):  

2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald C. Dahlin
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol 95 (2) ◽  
pp. 335-340
Author(s):  
Laura Phillips Sawyer

A long-standing, and deeply controversial, question in constitutional law is whether or not the Constitution's protections for “persons” and “people” extend to corporations. Law professor Adam Winkler's We the Corporations chronicles the most important legal battles launched by corporations to “win their constitutional rights,” by which he means both civil rights against discriminatory state action and civil liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution (p. xvii). Today, we think of the former as the right to be free from unequal treatment, often protected by statutory laws, and the latter as liberties that affect the ability to live one's life fully, such as the freedom of religion, speech, or association. The vim in Winkler's argument is that the court blurred this distinction when it applied liberty rights to nonprofit corporations and then, through a series of twentieth-century rulings, corporations were able to advance greater claims to liberty rights. Ultimately, those liberty rights have been employed to strike down significant bipartisan regulations, such as campaign finance laws, which were intended to advance democratic participation in the political process. At its core, this book asks, to what extent do “we the people” rule corporations and to what extent do they rule us?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document