In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court took individual free speech rights and added an ahistorical addition - giving these rights to corporations. The idea that such a fundamental right should be extended to corporations is nonsensical. Speech is not a property right and there is no reasonable argument that corporate speech is a reflection of the speech of its shareholder. Congress, however, can pass a law prohibiting corporations from funding political speech without the permission of ...
All content for Is That Even Constitutional? is the property of Sadena Thevarajah and Ken Thomas and is served directly from their servers
with no modification, redirects, or rehosting. The podcast is not affiliated with or endorsed by Podjoint in any way.
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court took individual free speech rights and added an ahistorical addition - giving these rights to corporations. The idea that such a fundamental right should be extended to corporations is nonsensical. Speech is not a property right and there is no reasonable argument that corporate speech is a reflection of the speech of its shareholder. Congress, however, can pass a law prohibiting corporations from funding political speech without the permission of ...
Project 2026: The Right to Reproductive Decision-Making
Is That Even Constitutional?
17 minutes
2 weeks ago
Project 2026: The Right to Reproductive Decision-Making
In 1965, the Supreme Court held in Griswold v. Connecticut that the Constitution protected the right of families to use contraception. In 1973, the Court in Roe v. Wade extended this right to decisions to terminate a pregnancy. When Roe was overturned fifty years later in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, this not only affected abortion rights but threatened access to contraceptives and fertility treatments. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing in concurrence, explicitly called for th...
Is That Even Constitutional?
In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court took individual free speech rights and added an ahistorical addition - giving these rights to corporations. The idea that such a fundamental right should be extended to corporations is nonsensical. Speech is not a property right and there is no reasonable argument that corporate speech is a reflection of the speech of its shareholder. Congress, however, can pass a law prohibiting corporations from funding political speech without the permission of ...
