By: Robert Bryson Shortly after the Citizens United and Janus decisions, detractors began heaping criticism upon the Supreme Court for “weaponizing” the First Amendment. Indeed, Justice Kagan makes that very argument in her dissent: “It [the majority] does so by weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, … Continue reading The First Amendment: Has it been Weaponized?
By: Robert Bryson Corporate personhood is the legal notion that a corporation is a distinct entity that exists separately from the human being associated with it (like owners, managers, and employees). Corporations got their first breath of life in the Justinian Digest (the latest iteration of the Roman Code). Pope Innocent IV (pontificate from 1243-54) … Continue reading Corporate Personhood: Can a corporation really hold religious views? How did we get here?
By: Ridgeway Woulfe We’ve addressed the need for a change in how America approaches gun violence. We’ve addressed some options for reducing gun violence. Now, we address WHO can take these steps. America has placed the most attention upon the federal government. Indeed, the federal government has the best ability to take the needed steps … Continue reading PIAC Gun Control Series: Who can Create Gun Control Regulations
By: Ken Jensen “[A]s matter of law the answer is clear. In the Federal Arbitration Act, Congress has instructed federal courts to enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms—including terms providing for individualized proceedings.” Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1619 (2018) The Supreme Court thus continued to enforce arbitration agreements consistent … Continue reading PIAC’s Supreme Court Review: Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis
By: Ridgeway Woulfe Last week, we explored the double standard the Supreme Court created by its Masterpiece Cake and its decision to uphold Trump’s nation-based immigration ban (apparently not a Muslim ban, as he routinely stated). In Masterpiece Cake, the Supreme Court held that a Commission’s animus toward a Christian baker was enough to find … Continue reading Supreme Court Promotes a Double Standard for Religious Animus: Muslims to Christians
By: Ken Jensen In her dissent to the majority opinion upholding Trump’s travel ban, Justice Sotomayor identifies a compelling contradiction with the Court’s previous opinion regarding gay wedding cakes. In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, the Court decided whether a baker could refuse to design or bake a cake for a same-sex … Continue reading Supreme Court Promotes a Double Standard for Religious Animus: Presidents to State Commissions
By: Ken Jensen After reading the Court’s opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018), I am struck with how our society is still confused with respect to sexual orientation. The Court struck down the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions to assess a cakeshop owner’s reasons for declining … Continue reading PIAC’s Supreme Court Review: Masterpiece Cake, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n.
By: Jessica Colburn The Second Amendment, while hotly debated, is not well understood because the language of the Amendment is unclear and old, specifically 227 years old. Here, we shed some light on what is meant by the language of the Second Amendment, including the phrases, “a well-regulated militia” and “the right of the people … Continue reading PIAC Gun Control Series: The History of the 2nd Amendment
By: Robert Bryson and Jessica Colburn In our journey down the rabbit hole of voter fraud, we have discussed how voter identification laws are still a thing, and whether voter fraud even happens. We also talked about Trump’s commission on voter fraud and its ultimate decommissioning. Most recently, we considered the delicate balance between encouraging … Continue reading Voter Fraud: What is at stake in Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute?
By: Robert Bryson This post will be the third in a five-part series examining “voter fraud,” its impact on elections, steps taken to curb it, and it will end with an analysis of Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute which is the Supreme Court case scheduled for arguments January 10, 2018 that will determine if … Continue reading How much fraud would it take to win?