Come check out our Symposium “Elections in America.”
Click the link to view the Final Program!
Corporations’ Right to Exercise Religion in Hobby Lobby
By Ana Choi
On Tuesday, March 25, the Supreme Court heard the oral arguments for the combined cases of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores and Conestoga Wood Specialties v. Sebelius. The two cases deal with the following question: can a for-profit corporation claim a religious freedom exception from the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act? On the one hand there is the government’s interest in making birth control available to all classes of women, and on the other hand there is the corporation owners’ interest in setting corporate policies that accord with their personal religious beliefs.
The challengers rely on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, which declares that “Government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion” unless the burden is “the least restrictive means” of furthering a “compelling government interest.” The problem, however, is that it is unclear whether a corporation can be a “person” with the right to exercise religion. During the oral arguments, Justice Sotomayor asked, “We have, according to our jurisprudence, 200 years of corporations speaking in its own interests. But where are the cases that show that a corporation exercises religion?” Justice Alito, on the other hand, was of the opinion that “there isn’t anything inherent in participating in a for-profit activity that’s inconsistent with…a free exercise claim.”
[Read more…] about Corporations’ Right to Exercise Religion in Hobby Lobby
Self Determination – A Mobius Strip?
by Noah Marks
At every press conference and in every newspaper article about the rapidly changing developments in Ukraine, leaders and analysts are struggling to adapt and apply World War II and Cold War era terminology to a globalized, interconnected world. Specifically, the term “self-determination” has been nearly turned inside out between Russian declarations and American warnings. Given the revolutionary milieu (e.g. Arab Spring), understanding this critical term’s history reveals deep irony in its present use and demonstrates the need to develop more accurate terminology.
“Self-determination” was first embraced as a unified concept in the UN charter. Specifically, the charter cites the concept as something exercised by “peoples.” (Neither ”self-determination” nor “peoples” is defined.) Many subsequent human rights treaties cite the concept, reiterating and constructing its “peoples”-vested nature.
Until the end of the Cold War, “self-determination” applied only to colonies. As de-colonization occurred, the term was used to refer to the right of formerly colonized people to independently determine their political status. That status included the system of government that controlled their sovereignty. Notably, a “people” was a colony unit, ignoring internal demographics. This use was reified by many International Court of Justice opinions regarding the independence of emerging nations (e.g. East Timor, Namibia/S.W. Africa, Palestine). (See Damrosch, Henkin, Pugh, Schachter, and Smit, International Law)