CART

(0) items

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues

by
Edition:
16th
ISBN13:

9780078139604

ISBN10:
0078139600
Format:
Paperback
Pub. Date:
10/24/2013
Publisher(s):
McGraw-Hill/Dushkin
List Price: $58.05

Rent Textbook

(Recommended)
 
Term
Due
Price
$20.32

Buy New Textbook

Usually Ships in 3-4 Business Days
N9780078139604
$56.60

Used Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out

eTextbook

We're Sorry
Not Available

More New and Used
from Private Sellers
Starting at $66.17
See Prices

Questions About This Book?

Why should I rent this book?
Renting is easy, fast, and cheap! Renting from eCampus.com can save you hundreds of dollars compared to the cost of new or used books each semester. At the end of the semester, simply ship the book back to us with a free UPS shipping label! No need to worry about selling it back.
How do rental returns work?
Returning books is as easy as possible. As your rental due date approaches, we will email you several courtesy reminders. When you are ready to return, you can print a free UPS shipping label from our website at any time. Then, just return the book to your UPS driver or any staffed UPS location. You can even use the same box we shipped it in!
What version or edition is this?
This is the 16th edition with a publication date of 10/24/2013.
What is included with this book?
  • The New copy of this book will include any supplemental materials advertised. Please check the title of the book to determine if it should include any CDs, lab manuals, study guides, etc.
  • The Rental copy of this book is not guaranteed to include any supplemental materials. You may receive a brand new copy, but typically, only the book itself.

Related Products


  • Taking Sides : Clashing Views on Legal Issues
    Taking Sides : Clashing Views on Legal Issues
  • Taking Sides : Clashing Views on Legal Issues
    Taking Sides : Clashing Views on Legal Issues
  • Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues
    Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues
  • Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues
    Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues
  • Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, Expanded
    Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, Expanded
  • Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, Expanded
    Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, Expanded




Summary

The Taking Sides Collection on McGraw-Hill Create™ includes current controversial issues in a debate-style format designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. This Collection contains a multitude of current and classic issues to enhance and customize your course. You can browse the entire Taking Sides Collection on Create, or you can search by topic, author, or keywords. Each Taking Sides issues is thoughtfully framed with Learning Outcomes, an Issue Summary, an Introduction, and an Exploring the Issue section featuring Critical Thinking and Reflection, Is There Common Ground?, and Additional Resources and Internet References. Go to McGraw-Hill Create™ at www.mcgrawhillcreate.com, click on the "Collections" tab, and select The Taking Sides Collection to browse the entire Collection. Select individual Taking Sides issues to enhance your course, or access and select the entire Katsh: Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, 16/e ExpressBook for an easy, pre-built teaching resource by clicking here. An online Instructor's Resource Guide with testing material is available for each Taking Sides volume. Using Taking Sides in the Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource. Visit the Create Central Online Learning Center at www.mhhe.com/createcentral for more details.

Table of Contents

Preliminary TOC

TAKING SIDES: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, Sixteenth Edition

Table of Contents


Clashing Views on Legal Issues, Sixteenth Edition

Unit: Law and Terrorism

Issue: Should U.S. Citizens Who Are Declared to Be "Enemy Combatants" Be Able to Contest Their Detention Before a Judge?
YES: Sandra Day O'Connor, from Majority Opinion, Hamdi, et al. v. Rumsfeld, U.S. Supreme Court (June 28, 2004)
NO: Clarence Thomas, from Dissenting Opinion, Hamdi, et al. v. Rumsfeld, U.S. Supreme Court (June 28, 2004)
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor finds that the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress does not authorize the indefinite detainment of a person found to be an “enemy combatant.” Justice Clarence Thomas believes that the detention of an “enemy combatant” is permitted under the federal government’s war powers.
Issue: Does the President Possess Constitutional Authority to Order Wiretaps on U.S. Citizens?
YES: U.S. Department of Justice, from “Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President” (January 19, 2006)
NO: Letter to Congress, from 14 Law Professors and Former Government Attorneys to Congressional Leaders (January 2, 2006)
The Department of Justice argues that the Constitution gives the president the right to engage in electronic surveillance, with or without congressional approval or judicial oversight. It further claims that the NSA wiretapping program ordered by President Bush does not violate federal law, specifically the Foreign Intelligent Surveillance Act (FISA), because such surveillance falls under the auspices of the military response to the 9/11 attacks that was authorized by Congress. Several lawyers with expertise in constitutional law or experience in the federal government argue that the NSA wiretapping program violates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They further argue that the president does not have any inherent ability either to engage in warrantless wiretapping or to violate federal law that limits such surveillance.

Unit: Law and the Individual

Issue: Are Violent Video Games Protected by the First Amendment?
YES: Antonin Scalia, from Majority Opinion, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, U.S. Supreme Court (June 27, 2011)
NO: Stephen Breyer, from Dissenting Opinion, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, U.S. Supreme Court (June 27, 2011)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues that legislation creating a whole new category of speech that is banned only for children violates the First Amendment. Justice Stephen Breyer believes that the California law restricting the purchase of videogames by minors is clear.
Issue: Is it Constitutional to Ban Late-Term Abortions Without Providing for an Exception to Protect the Health of the Mother?
YES: Anthony Kennedy, from Majority Opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart, U.S. Supreme Court (April 18, 2007)
NO: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from Dissenting Opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart, U.S. Supreme Court (April 18, 2007)
Justice Anthony Kennedy’s rules that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was constitutional even without a “health exception” for the woman. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argues that the law clearly contravenes the Court’s holding in prior cases that any regulation limiting a woman’s access to abortion, even post-viability, must include a health exception.
Issue: Can States Ban Physician Aid-in-Dying for Terminally Ill Patients?
YES: William H. Rehnquist, from Majority Opinion, Washington et al. v. Glucksberg et al., U.S. Supreme Court, (June 26, 1997)
NO: Stephen Reinhardt, from Majority Opinion, Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington, U.S. Supreme Court (1996)
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist writing one of six opinions of a unanimous Court in Washington v. Glucksberg, et.al, rules that although patients have the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, “physician-assisted suicide” is not constitutionally protected and states may ban that practice. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing the majority opinion for the Ninth Circuit case that became Washington v. Glucksberg et. al. when it reached the U.S. Supreme Court, argues that criminalizing physician-assistance in hastening the death of competent, terminally ill patients who request life-ending prescriptions violates the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
Issue: Does the Sharing of Music Files Through the Internet Violate Copyright Laws?
YES: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from “Concurring Opinion, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster,U.S. Supreme Court (June 27, 2005)
NO: Stephen Breyer, from “Concurring Opinion, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios v. Grokster, U.S. Supreme Court (June 27, 2005)
Justice Ginsburg believes that the copyright laws are violated by a company when its software is used primarily for illegal file sharing, and lawful uses in the future are unlikely. Justice Breyer does not want the copyright laws to hinder technological innovation and is more willing to take into account the potential use of the software for lawful file sharing.
Issue: Is the Eighth Amendment Protection Violated if Prisoners Are Deprived of Basic Sustenance, Including Adequate Medical Care?
YES: Anthony Kennedy, from Majority Opinion, Brown v. Plata, U.S. Supreme Court (May 23, 2011)
NO: Antonin Scalia, from Dissenting Opinion, Brown v. Plata, U.S. Supreme Court (May 23, 2011)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rules that if a prison deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting violation of the Eighth Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia believes that a ruling that may result in the release of 40,000 prisoners is unwarranted and unprecedented.

Unit: Law and the State

Issue: Should Judges Be Elected Rather Than Appointed?
YES: Michael R. Dimino, Sr., “The Worst Way of Selecting Judges—Except All the Others that have been Tried,” Northern Kentucky L. Rev, , v. 32, pp. 267 – 304 (2005).
NO: Charles Gardner Geyh, “Why Judicial Elections Stink,” 64 Ohio St. L.J. , v. 64, pp. 43 - 79 (2003).
Professor Charles Geyh criticizes the practice of electing judges and argues that it reduces judicial independence and accountability. Professor Michael Dimino claims that electing judges is no worse than appointing them and that it is appropriate for citizens to have a say in who will be making decisions that affect them.
Issue: Do Religious Groups Have a Right to Use Public School Facilities After Hours?
YES: Clarence Thomas, from Majority Opinion, Good News Club et al. v. Milford Central School, U.S. Supreme Court (June 11, 2001)
NO: David Souter, from Dissenting Opinion, Good News Club et al. v. Milford Central School, U.S. Supreme Court (June 11, 2001)
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas affirms the right of religious groups to use school facilities after the school day ends, maintaining that restricting such use is a violation of free speech rights. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, dissenting from the Court’s opinion, contends that the use of school facilities by religious groups blurs the line between public classroom instruction and private religious indoctrination and therefore violates the establishment clause of the Constitution.
Issue: Is a Strip Search of Middle School Students That Is Aimed at Finding Drugs Prohibited Under the Fourth Amendment?
YES: David Souter, from Majority Opinion, Safford Unified School District, et. al., v. April Redding, U.S. Supreme Court (June 25, 2009)
NO: Clarence Thomas, from Dissenting Opinion, Safford Unified School District, et. al., v. April Redding, U.S. Supreme Court (June 25, 2009)
Supreme Court Justice David Souter holds that a search in school requires a reasonable belief that evidence of wrongdoing will be found and that the search is not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the Fourth Amendment was not violated when there is reasonable suspicion that the student is in possession of drugs banned by school policy and the search is in an area where small pills could be concealed.
Issue: Is a Dog Sniffing for Drugs Outside a Home a Search Prohibited by the Fourth Amendment?
YES: Antonin Scalia, from Majority Opinion, Florida v. Jardines, U.S. Supreme Court (March 26, 2013)
NO: Samuel Alito, from Dissenting Opinion, Florida v. Jardines, U.S. Supreme Court (March 26, 2013)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia finds that it is a search and a violation of the Fourth Amendment when police obtain evidence by allowing a trained dog to physically enter and occupy an area outside a home when permission has not been obtained from the home owner. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito disagrees that there was a trespass here or that the dog sniff could be considered to be invading any reasonable expectation of privacy given that one can expect that odors will float outside of a house.
Issue: Does the “Cruel and Unusual Punishment” Clause of the Eighth Amendment Bar the Imposition of the Death Penalty on Juveniles?
YES: Anthony Kennedy, from Majority Opinion, Roper v. Simmons, U.S. Supreme Court (March 1, 2005)
NO: Antonin Scalia, from Dissenting Opinion, Roper v. Simmons, U.S. Supreme Court (March 1, 2005)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy holds that the Constitution prohibits the execution of a person who was under the age of eighteen at the time of the offense. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia believes that the Constitution does not preclude the execution of a juvenile.

Unit: Law and the Community

Issue: Is There a Constitutional Right to Possess a Firearm for Private Use?
YES: Antonin Scalia, from Majority Opinion, District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller, U.S. Supreme Court (June 26, 2008)
NO: John Paul Stevens, from Dissenting Opinion, District of Columbia, et al. v. Dick Anthony Heller, U.S. Supreme Court (June 26, 2008)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues that the Second Amendment protects the right of a private citizen to own a handgun for self-defense. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues that a previous case, United States v. Miller, held that the Second Amendment did not protect the right of a private citizen to own a handgun for self-defense.
Issue: Are Blanket Prohibitions on Cross Burnings Unconstitutional?
YES: Sandra Day O'Connor, from Majority Opinion, Virginia v. Barry Elton Black, Richard J. Elliott, and Jonathan O’Mara, U.S. Supreme Court (April 7, 2003)
NO: Clarence Thomas, from Dissenting Opinion, Virginia v. Barry Elton Black, Richard J. Elliott, and Jonathan O’Mara, U.S. Supreme Court (April 7, 2003)
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor argues that a Virginia statute proscribing all forms of cross burning is unconstitutional because symbolic speech can only be prohibited when done with the intent to intimidate, and such an intent cannot be inferred solely from the type of symbolic speech used. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the history and nature of cross burning in the United States inextricably links the act to threatening and menacing violence and that the intent to intimidate can therefore be inferred solely from the act of cross burning itself.
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment Prohibit the Police from Collecting a DNA Sample from a Person Arrested, but Not Yet Convicted on Felony Charges?
YES: Anthony Kennedy, from Majority Opinion, Maryland v. King, U.S. Supreme Court (June 3, 2013)
NO: Antonin Scalia, from Dissenting Opinion, Maryland v. King, U.S. Supreme Court (June 3, 2013)
Justice Anthony Kennedy rules that using a cheek swab to collect a person’s DNA during post-arrest processing is a reasonable search under the Fourth Amendment because it is predominantly used to confirm the identity of the arrestee. Justice Antonin Scalia argues that DNA collection at the time of arrest is an unreasonable search because the arrestee’s DNA profile is predominantly used to investigate unrelated crimes.
Issue: Is the Federal Defense of Marriage Act that Defines Marriage as Between One Man and One Woman Unconstitutional?
YES: Anthony Kennedy, from Majority Opinion, United States v. Windsor, U.S. Supreme Court (June 26, 2013)
NO: Justice Samuel Alito, from Minority Opinion, United States v. Windsor, U.S. Supreme Court (June 26, 2013)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy holds that the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection is violated by defining marriage solely as between one man and one woman and precluding same-sex couples legally married under state law of the same benefits and obligations of married couples under federal law. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito holds that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage and that the government has the right to regulate the institution of marriage.
Issue: Do Race-Conscious Programs in Public University Admissions Policies Violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Law?
YES: Clarence Thomas, from Dissenting Opinion, Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al., U.S. Supreme Court (June 23, 2003)
NO: Sandra Day O’Connor, from Majority Opinion, Barbara Grutter v. Lee Bollinger et al., U.S. Supreme Court (June 23, 2003)
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the University of Michigan Law School’s admissions policy discriminates on the basis of race and is therefore in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor holds that the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, which makes race one factor among many in the process of creating a diverse student body, does not violate the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection under the law.
Issue: Does the Constitution’s Commerce Clause Allow Congress to Require Uninsured Individuals to Buy Health Insurance?
YES: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, Supreme Court (2012).
NO: John G. Roberts, Jr., from Majority Opinion, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius, Supreme Court (2012).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argues that, under existing Supreme Court interpretations of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, Congress has the constitutional authority to require uninsured Americans to buy health insurance or pay a penalty. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., argues that a federal mandate to buy a service or product exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause.
Issue: Is it Unconstitutional for States to Imprison Undocumented Immigrants?
YES: Anthony Kennedy, from Majority Opinion, Arizona v. United States, Supreme Court (2012).
NO: Antonin Scalia, from Dissenting Opinion, Arizona v. United States, Supreme Court (2012).
Justice Anthony Kennedy argues that a recent state law making it a crime to be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona impinges on the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration. Justice Antonin Scalia argues that it is not unconstitutional for a state to supplement federal immigration law with its own, harsher penalties for illegal immigration


Please wait while the item is added to your cart...