<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>SaddleBrooke Republican Club &#187; citizens united</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sbrc1.net/tag/citizens-united/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sbrc1.net</link>
	<description>Western United States Largest Republican Club</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 20 May 2012 13:02:25 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>‘People’s Rights Amendment’ Would Knock Out People’s Rights</title>
		<link>http://feeds.cato.org/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/Lonc0Kk1gVU/</link>
		<comments>http://feeds.cato.org/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/Lonc0Kk1gVU/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 May 2012 12:34:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ilya Shapiro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?p=47529</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By Ilya Shapiro</p>This blogpost was co-authored by Cato legal associate Kathleen Hunker. Any prizefighter worth betting on knows that the worst thing you can do in a tough match is succumb to frustration.  House Democrats should heed that wisdom.  Frustrated by the Constitution’s interference in their efforts to muzzle certain kinds of political speech, Rep. Jim McGovern (D-MA), House Minority [...]<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/peoples-rights-amendment-would-knock-out-peoples-rights/">&#8216;People&#8217;s Rights Amendment&#8217; Would Knock Out People&#8217;s Rights</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/peoples-rights-amendment-would-knock-out-peoples-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Corporate Speech Rights But Not Corporate Liability for Violating the ‘Law of Nations’?</title>
		<link>http://feeds.cato.org/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/1C7oh2YLcZY/</link>
		<comments>http://feeds.cato.org/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/1C7oh2YLcZY/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 Feb 2012 20:59:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ilya Shapiro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[amicus briefs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[international law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kiobel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?p=44971</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By Ilya Shapiro</p>Yesterday the Supreme Court heard argument in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, the case (which I&#8217;ve discussed before and in which Cato filed a brief) that asks whether, under the Alien Tort Statute, the “law of nations” can be applied against an entity that is not a natural person: a corporation.  As the majority of the Court seemed [...]<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/why-corporate-speech-rights-but-not-corporate-liability-for-violating-the-law-of-nations/">Why Corporate Speech Rights But Not Corporate Liability for Violating the &#8216;Law of Nations&#8217;?</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/why-corporate-speech-rights-but-not-corporate-liability-for-violating-the-law-of-nations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Morning Bell: A Troubling Trend in the Courts</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/24/morning-bell-a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/24/morning-bell-a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:03:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ericka Andersen</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Morning Bell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule of Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[The Morning Bell]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.heritage.org/?p=92085</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<br />Should judges act based upon reasoned legal arguments, or based upon their personal feelings and media coverage?  A controversial recent &#8220;statement&#8221; made by Justices Ginsburg and Breyer in a case that was the legal equivalent of a slam dunk raises serious questions about what really guides some judges. In the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the Court was asked to address a Montana Supreme Court opinion upholding a Montana ban on independent expenditures by corporations. This should be an easy case—after all, the Court ruled in Citizens United v. &#8230; <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/24/morning-bell-a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/"><span>More</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.heritage.org/2012/02/24/morning-bell-a-troubling-trend-in-the-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Citizens United at Two</title>
		<link>http://feeds.cato.org/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/b1R_IhfdKjo/</link>
		<comments>http://feeds.cato.org/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/b1R_IhfdKjo/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:54:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Caleb O. Brown</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[catoinstitutevideo]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[center for competitive politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Common Cause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate personhood]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[federal election commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ilya shapiro]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Institute for Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[john samples]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Civil Liberties]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[move to amend]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?p=42962</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By Caleb O. Brown</p>The Supreme Court decided Citizens United two years ago this week. The complaints about the ruling that have emerged since are often bizarre and misrepresent much of the landmark ruling&#8217;s import. Here&#8217;s what the case was about. Almost nowhere in the complaints about the Citizens United ruling will you hear that the case decided that [...]<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/citizens-united-at-two/"><em>Citizens United</em> at Two</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/citizens-united-at-two/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Published: So What If Corporations Aren’t People?</title>
		<link>http://feeds.cato.org/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/_oYsoKpocus/</link>
		<comments>http://feeds.cato.org/~r/Cato-at-liberty/~3/_oYsoKpocus/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Dec 2011 13:47:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Ilya Shapiro</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[corporate rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Government and Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law and Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/?p=41727</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p>By Ilya Shapiro</p>Six months ago, I wrote about a law review article I had just co-authored with former Cato legal associate Caitlyn McCarthy regarding corporate rights post-Citizens United.  Well, now it’s officially published, in The John Marshall Law Review.  Here’s the abstract: Corporate participation in public discourse has long been a controversial issue, one that was reignited by the [...]<p><a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/published-so-what-if-corporations-arent-people/">Published: So What If Corporations Aren&#8217;t People?</a> is a post from <a href="http://www.cato-at-liberty.org">Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute Blog</a></p>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/published-so-what-if-corporations-arent-people/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>‘OCCUPIED’ Constitutional Amendment Would Eliminate Due Process for Corporations</title>
		<link>http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/30/occupied-constitutional-amendment-would-eliminate-due-process-for-corporations/</link>
		<comments>http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/30/occupied-constitutional-amendment-would-eliminate-due-process-for-corporations/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2011 14:27:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Lachlan Markay</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens united vs. FEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Constitution]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[constitutional amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Featured]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[First Amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[free speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule of Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scribe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.heritage.org/?p=85118</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<br />A constitutional amendment offered in the House of Representatives would strip American companies of all protections guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. While the amendment is aimed at curbing free speech rights afforded third party groups by the Supreme Court decision Citizens United v. FEC, it would, whether intended or not, open the door to a host of gross violations of Americans’ civil rights. The proposed amendment, offered by Rep. Theodore Deutch (D-FL) on Nov. 18, is wholly a product of the violent and subversive &#8220;Occupy&#8221; protest movement currently unwinding across the &#8230; <a href="http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/30/occupied-constitutional-amendment-would-eliminate-due-process-for-corporations/"><span>More</span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://blog.heritage.org/2011/11/30/occupied-constitutional-amendment-would-eliminate-due-process-for-corporations/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

