About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

41 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. [i] (2007-2008)

handle is hein.journals/collsp41 and id is 1 raw text is: COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS Volume 41 Number 1 Fall 2007 Copyright © 2007 by the Columbia Journal of Law and Social Problems, Inc. A CAPITAL IDEA: LEGISLATION TO GIVE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A VOTE IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ............................................................... 1 Stemming from its unique constitutional status as the seat of federal government, the District of Columbia lacks the voting representation in Congress to which states are entitled. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, passed by the House of Representatives and pending in the Senate, seeks to address this structural disenfranchisement by providing the District with a voting member in the House. Such unprecedented legislation raises many legal and policy questions. This Note argues that, with one slight modification, the legislation is a sound accommodation in both respects. While federal security interests justify some impositions on the District, withholding legislative representation is not one of them. Because judicial relief is unavailable and other alternatives are politically unviable, the soundest remedy is legislation to provide a House representative. Such legislation is a valid exercise of Congress's authority to legislate for the District and extend the franchise, notwithstanding the Constitution's textual delimitation of House representation to states. A provision of this particular bill limiting the District to a single representative regardless of population must be removed as unconstitutional, however. As a separate matter, ambiguous precedents suggest that standing doctrine may limit judicial review of the legislation's constitutionality. Finally, far from putting Congress on a slippery slope to excessive empowerment of the District and other federal jurisdictions, the legislation creates inherently and uniquely weak representation. INVOLVEMENT OVERBOARD: AN EVALUATION OF HOW AND WHY CORPORATE BOARDS HAVE BECOME INCREASINGLY ACTIVE AND THE PROBLEMS THE ACTIVITY PRESENTS ........................................................................ 53 The recent passage of the Sarbanes Oxley Act and a change in the Delaware Courts' willingness to review the conduct of directors has increased the level and changed the character of director involvement in corporations. This change is inefficient and reflects confusion amongst corporate boards as to what their role should be in the corporation. This Note suggests two concurrent solutions to this problem. First, the Delaware courts should formally adopt the ALI Monitoring Model to clarify the role that directors should serve in the corporation and second, the SEC should repeal section 404 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act because it is a large source of the confusion concerning how involved directors should be in the corporation.

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most