The Fugitive Corporations Clause

[earl maltz]

As Rehnquist pointed out a number of years ago, the difference is that 
corportations are entirely the creations of state law, which should be able 
to define their powers in any way that they see fit.

At 03:16 PM 6/20/2006 -0400, Ilya Somin wrote:

>As for the "free speech rights of corporations," I don't see why people 
>who use the corporate form to speak, including CNN, the New York Times, 
>the ACLU, labor unions, and others, all of which are legally corporations) 
>should have free speech rights any different from those who speak as 
>unattached individuals or as members of a partnership. Given the corporate 
>nature of most liberal interest groups, it is also not clear to me that a 
>decision enhancing "corporate" speech necessarily favors conservatives, 
>unless one assumes a baseline under which corporations favoring 
>conservative positions receive less protection than those favoring liberal 
>ones.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Ilya Somin
>Assistant Professor of Law
>George Mason University School of Law
>3301 Fairfax Dr.
>Arlington, VA 22201
>ph: 703-993-8069
>fax: 703-993-8202
>e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
>Website: http://mason.gmu.edu/~isomin/
>SSRN Page: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=333339
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Paul Finkelman <paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu>
>Date: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:38 pm
>Subject: Re: The Fugitive Corporations Clause
>
> > They might indeed strengthen the understanding of  the takings
> > clause to
> > protect corporate property, just at Taney use the 5th Amendment to
> > prevent Congress from freeing slaves in the federal territories
> > (except
> > now with the 14th it would apply to the states as well).
> > Presumably
> > they could expand the free speech rights of corporations, which
> > would in
> > a sense be the opposite of Taney's view that free blacks had no
> > rights.
> > The Court might hold that it is to too great a burden on
> > corporations
> > (as opposed to say local managers) to make the liable for the
> > hiring in
> > of illegal aliens at substandard wages (sort of a play on hiring
> > fugitive slaves).  These are just a few random thoughts.
> >
> > Paul Finkelman
> >
> > Volokh, Eugene wrote:
> >
> > >"If Roberts ever gains a reliable fifth vote, he and his
> > colleagues will
> > >do as much as they can to protect corporations as Taney did to
> > protect>slavery. "
> > >
> > >     Can someone elaborate a little on this?  Would the claim be that
> > >the Justices would broaden the rights to apprehend fugitive
> > >corporations?  That they would hold (not very controversially)
> > that an
> > >attempt to take away a corporation's property leads to constitutional
> > >scrutiny?  That each corporation would be counted as 3/5 of a
> > person for
> > >purposes of apportionment?  That they would stymie the non-existent
> > >corporation abolitionist movement?  That they would protect corporate
> > >free speech rights, in a way that Justice Taney might have -- quite
> > >correctly -- protected slaveowners' free speech rights, had the issue
> > >been even around for him then?
> > >
> > >     Seriously, in what academic way -- as opposed to polemical way,
> > >or a way of expressing loathing or contempt towards the
> > conservatives on
> > >the Court -- is this analogy sound or even meaningful?
> > >
> > >     Eugene
> > >_______________________________________________
> > >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> > >
> > >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be
> > viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read
> > messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and
> > list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Finkelman
> > Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
> > University of Tulsa College of Law
> > 3120 East 4th Place
> > Tulsa, OK   74104-3189
> >
> > 918-631-3706 (office)
> > 918-631-2194 (fax)
> >
> > paul-finkelman at utulsa.edu
> >
> > Starting July 1:
> >
> > Paul Finkelman
> > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> > Albany Law School
> > 80 New Scotland Avenue
> > Albany, New York  12208-3494
> >
> > 518-445-3386 (office)
> > 518-605-0296 (cell)
> >
> > pfinkelman at albanylaw.edu
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> > To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
> > http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> > Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed
> > as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages
> > that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list
> > members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> >
>_______________________________________________
>To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
>http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
>Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as 
>private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are 
>posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or 
>wrongly) forward the messages to others.