The degree of authorized government interference in corporate affairs has been controversial since the nation`s early days. In 1790 John Marshall, a private lawyer and veteran of the Continental Army, represented the board of trustees of the College of William and Mary in a legal dispute that required him to defend the society`s right to reorganize, dismissing professors in the process, The Reverend John Bracken v. Visitors to Wm & Mary College (7 Va. 573; 1790 Virginia Supreme Court). The Virginia Supreme Court ruled that the original crown charter gave the company`s visitors` council the power to make changes, including a reorganization. However, the illegal status of cannabis is changing. Despite the continued illegality under federal law,9 between 1996 and June 2019, 33 U.S. states, the District of Columbia, and the territories of Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands legalized the use of cannabis for medical purposes, and 11 states, D.C., Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands legalized recreational or “adult” use of the drug.10 In these jurisdictions, a lucrative new business of professional marketing companies is emerging. 11 industry-specific conferences and events,12 and industry groups are actively advocating for favorable legislative changes.13 In Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific of 1886 – 118 U.S. 394 (1886), Supreme Court Justice Waite orally ordered counsel that the Fourteenth Amendment equal protection clause provides constitutional protection for businesses in addition to individuals, and that the hearing should focus on other issues in the case.
 In santa clara, stenographer Bancroft Davis noted in the footnote of the opinion that Chief Justice Morrison Waite began the hearing by saying, “The court does not want to hear arguments as to whether the provision of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits a state from denying any person within its jurisdiction the same protection of the law, applies to these companies. We all think that is the case.  Although the guiding principle is not part of the Court`s opinion and therefore does not constitute a precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 USA 181 (1888), the Court clearly upheld the doctrine by stating: “Under the term `person`, there is no doubt that a private corporation [in the Fourteenth Amendment] is included. These entities are only associations of persons who are united for a particular purpose and who may carry on their activities under a particular name and have several members without dissolution.  This doctrine has since been repeatedly reaffirmed by the Court. [Citation needed] Power of attorney A power of attorney allows you to appoint someone to take legal action on your behalf, such as: Allow someone to buy or sell property in the United States on your behalf while you are abroad. You can use our empty power of attorney or bring your own power of attorney.
If you are signing on behalf of a company, LLC, etc., you must prove that you are authorized to sign on behalf of the organization. Legal personality is the legal idea that a company, distinct from its associated persons (such as owners, managers or employees), has at least some of the legal rights and obligations enjoyed by natural persons.  In most countries, companies as legal entities have the right to enter into contracts with other parties and to sue or be sued in court in the same way as natural persons or associations of persons without legal capacity. Based on the results of the elections between 2012 and 2018 and various public opinion polls, 391 voters strongly support medical legalization and the legalization of recreational activities as general principles.392 Depending on the confidence one has in the electorate to differentiate itself when evaluating electoral issues, it may be fair to ask whether, At this current high level to support legalization, voters approve a legalization initiative that will be taken literally to achieve these goals. At least for now, it looks like they won`t. For example, Ohio`s 2015 Initiative 3 reportedly legalized medical and recreational cannabis. 393 According to an April 2015 state poll, 84 percent of Ohio voters favored medical legalization and 52 percent favored legalizing adult use.394 Nevertheless, the initiative failed by far, garnering only 36 percent of the vote, the lowest of any legalization measure of any kind in a state since at least 2004.395 Ohio`s measure was exceptionally constructed, a small group of interconnected corporate investors, who provided almost all of the financial support for the initiative to give oligopolistic control over the proposed cannabis market, which apparently contributed greatly to its defeat.396 A key point of discussion in recent years has been the role that corporate money should and should play in democratic politics. This is part of the broader debate about campaign finance reform and the role money can play in politics. Based on election results and opinion polls, the momentum currently appears to be in favor of legalization in general.72 However, the exact parameters of a new legal framework for cannabis may not yet be set. One of the most pressing questions in the coming years will be whether legislators can better integrate public health objectives into legalization laws than the approaches previously proposed by advocates as part of the initiative process. Cannabis is prevalent in the United States and abroad despite its illegal status, but that illegal status is changing. In the United States, 33 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical cannabis, and 11 states and DCs have legalized adult cannabis.
The majority of the state`s medical cannabis laws and all but two of the state`s laws on adult use are the result of citizen initiatives, but state lawmakers are beginning to seriously consider adult use legislation. From a public health perspective, the legalization of cannabis represents a mix of potential risks and benefits, but a legislative approach offers an opportunity to improve existing legalization models that have been adopted through the initiative process and that strongly favor commercial interests over public health. To assess whether state legislators are responding to this opportunity, this article examines the provisions of proposed cannabis legalization laws for adults serving in state legislatures starting in February 2019 to assess the integration of key public health best practices based on effective policy frameworks for tobacco and alcohol control in the field of public health. Given public support for legalization, it is likely that other adult cannabis laws will be passed by the state, but legalization should not be seen as a binary choice between total prohibition and the commercialization of laissez-faire. The extent to which adult cannabis laws include or reject best public health practices will greatly affect their impact, and health advocates should strive to influence the development of such laws to prioritize public health and learn from past successes and failures in regulating other substances. The reluctance of policymakers to introduce full legalization of cannabis may be wise given the current state of cannabis science. However, the evolution of public opinion has pushed the question. In states with a voting initiative process, legalization advocates will take their case directly to voters, and it is very likely that they will succeed.
In states where this process is not available, there is a distinct but associated risk. As government cannabis markets mature across the country (and in other countries) and large corporations enter 415 or emerge416, the ability of the emerging legal cannabis industry to influence lawmakers will increase. The limits of the legalization of the courts will not contain this influence. If the cannabis industry gains influence in state legislatures (or congress), the policy is likely to further the interests of the industry over public health. To protect public health, the best approach is to enshrine a public health approach in legalization from the outset, rather than fighting these battles defensively. Ralph Nader, Phil Radford and others have argued that a strictly originalist philosophy should reject the doctrine of corporate personality under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Indeed, Chief Justice William Rehnquist has repeatedly criticized the Court`s invention of the constitutional “rights” of corporations, including in his dissenting opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti; In Bellotti, however, Justice Rehnquist`s objections are based on his “views on the limited application of the First Amendment to states” rather than whether companies are considered “persons” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Nevertheless, the judgments of these judges continued to uphold the assumption of corporate personality, as did the Waite Court, and Rehnquist J. himself ultimately supported the right of corporations to spend in elections (the majority opinion in Bellotti) in his dissenting opinion in McConnell v.