FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3123144865> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3123144865 startingPage "1447" @default.
• W3123144865 abstract "Constitutional Adjudication, Free Expression, and Fashionable Art of Corporation Bashing BRANDISHING THE FIRST AMENDMENT: COMMERCIAL EXPRESSION IN AMERICA. By Tamara R. Piety. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2012. 342 pages. $70.00.I. IntroductionLate in 2011, Massachusetts Congressman James P. McGovern proposed a constitutional amendment to limit terms People, person, or citizens as used in Constitution to natural persons.1 As to provisions that do not explicitly use terms People, person, or citizens, such as First Amendment, new amendment would clarify that We people who ordain and establish this Constitution intend rights protected by this Constitution to be rights of natural persons, with goal and effect of rendering impossible any constitutional recognition of corporations.2 Whatever one thinks about merits of this proposal, there is little doubt that it taps into widespread confusion about and anger over Supreme Court's holding in its 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the First Amendment does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker's corporate identity.3 The widespread reaction of both legal scholars and educated lay people to Citizens United decision was that it is preposterous to believe that a corporation could actually possess constitutional rights because a corporation is neither a person nor a citizen.4Most recently, debate over corporate First Amendment rights has been impacted by interesting and controversial-if seriously flawed- new book by Professor Tamara Piety, Brandishing First Amendment: Commercial Expression in America.5 Professor Piety's book develops an elaborate constitutional argument that all but excludes speech by profitmaking corporations from First Amendment's protective scope.This widespread reaction, while perhaps politically understandable, reveals a complete lack of familiarity with well-established precepts of American constitutional law. In reality, Citizens United Court's recognition of a corporation's ability to invoke constitutional rights was nothing new. Corporations have been invoking numerous constitutionalized and subconstitutionalized rights in court for many years.6 Indeed, if Congressman McGovern's amendment ever managed to become law, one wonders how provision's supporters would feel about removal of New York Times and Washington Post-both profit-making corporations, of course-from First Amendment's protective reach.Most of battles over constitutional status of corporations were long ago resolved in favor of allowing corporations to invoke constitutional guarantees. Today, corporate standing to challenge constitutional violations is so well established that it usually goes unnoticed. Corporations regularly invoke Due Process Clause,7 Dormant Commerce Clause,8 Diversity Clause,9 separation of powers protections,10 and Sixth and Seventh Amendment rights to jury trial.11 Even when it comes to First Amendment right of free expression, powerful corporate owners of newspapers and broadcast networks regularly invoke First Amendment without slightest controversy over their corporate form.12 Moreover, since 1976, Supreme Court has provided continually expanding First Amendment protection to commercial speech, which is invariably disseminated by profit-making corporations.13Such practices should hardly come as a surprise. After all, if a corporation is defrauded in marketplace by a contractor or competitor, would anyone seriously challenge that corporation's ability to resort to judicial process to remedy legal wrong done to it? Our economy would no doubt quickly degenerate into a state of chaos if corporations were denied opportunity to vindicate their legal rights in court. But if no doubt exists that corporations have standing to vindicate subconstitutional rights and protections, how, purely as a logical matter, could they be categorically denied opportunity to invoke nation's highest law, United States Constitution? …" @default.
• W3123144865 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3123144865 creator A5052035217 @default.
• W3123144865 creator A5065284834 @default.
• W3123144865 date "2013-05-01" @default.
• W3123144865 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W3123144865 title "Constitutional Adjudication, Free Expression, and the Fashionable Art of Corporation Bashing" @default.
• W3123144865 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W3123144865 type Work @default.
• W3123144865 sameAs 3123144865 @default.
• W3123144865 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3123144865 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3123144865 hasAuthorship W3123144865A5052035217 @default.
• W3123144865 hasAuthorship W3123144865A5065284834 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConcept C204434341 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConcept C2776154427 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConcept C2778348171 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConcept C94625758 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConceptScore W3123144865C144024400 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConceptScore W3123144865C17744445 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConceptScore W3123144865C199539241 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConceptScore W3123144865C204434341 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConceptScore W3123144865C2776154427 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConceptScore W3123144865C2778272461 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConceptScore W3123144865C2778348171 @default.
• W3123144865 hasConceptScore W3123144865C94625758 @default.
• W3123144865 hasIssue "6" @default.
• W3123144865 hasLocation W31231448651 @default.
• W3123144865 hasOpenAccess W3123144865 @default.
• W3123144865 hasPrimaryLocation W31231448651 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W1040399617 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W1480366750 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W1567982903 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W2137945718 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W2257270320 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W225975349 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W2372534211 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W257210011 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W3123296735 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W3123319506 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W3123990768 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W3158153564 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W3172071686 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W3211195068 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W627308211 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W882775835 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W2162477464 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W3122585268 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W3125927685 @default.
• W3123144865 hasRelatedWork W323582859 @default.
• W3123144865 hasVolume "91" @default.
• W3123144865 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3123144865 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3123144865 magId "3123144865" @default.
• W3123144865 workType "article" @default.