About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

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.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most