Entrenching the duopoly: why the Supreme Court should not allow the states to protect the Democrats and Republicans from political competition

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court wrongly supported the duopoloy of the two-party political system in its 1997 Timmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party decision. The decision banned a candidate's right to associate with more than one party. The Supreme Court failed to justify two-party system's necessity or the Court's right to uphold the necessity. Arguments that a two-party system promotes stability and enhances voting cannot be proven. The decision violated the candidate's First Amendment rights.

Political parties, Freedom of association

---

O'Hagan's problems

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court's definition of securities fraud in United States v. O'Hagan does not answer a related and continually difficult question about how much material non-public information one must disclose in a securities transaction. United States v. O'Hagan is concerned with information acquired by a fiduciary through deceit. The case decision does not concern itself with other types of advantageous information.

Securities fraud, Disclosure (Securities law)

---

Similar abstracts:

• Abstracts: The Delaware Supreme Court, in two recent decisions, has clarified the application of the corporate-opportunity doctrine
• Abstracts: What the poor owe the rich. Electricity markets: should the rest of the world adopt the United Kingdom's reforms?
• Abstracts: Step by step: how the U.S. government adopted the ADR idea. The role of the ADR in managed care disputes. California lawmakers turn focus toward ADR
• Abstracts: Destabilizing racial classifications based on insights gleaned from trademark law
• Abstracts: Printz, state sovereignty, and the limits of formalism. The new etiquette of federalism: New York, Printz, and Yeskey

This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.