The Fugitive Corporations Clause

[M. Sean Fosmire]

In arguments on constitutional law issues, a good rule of thumb is - stop me
if you've heard this before - the first one to mention an analogy to Dred
Scott loses.

On 6/20/06, Volokh, Eugene <VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu> 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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060623/4ab6be4f/attachment.html