You Decide! Current Debates in American Politics, 2006 Edition

by Rourke, John T

ISBN13:

9780321411082

ISBN10:

0321411080

Format:

Paperback

Pub. Date:

1/1/2006

Publisher(s):

Longman

Upgraded Edition: Click here!

Other versions by this Author

List Price: ~~$35.00~~

More New and Used
from Private Sellers

Starting at $0.99

Rent Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out

Used Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out

eTextbook

We're Sorry
Not Available

New Textbook

We're Sorry
Sold Out

Summary

This exciting new debate-style reader edited by John Rourke examines provocative issues in American politics today. The topics featured in You Decide! have been selected for their currency, importance, and student interest, and the pieces arguing various sides of a given issue come from recent journals, congressional hearings, think tanks, and periodicals. Sure to get students engaged and thinking critically about our political system, You Decide!

PREFACE

1. CONSTITUTION

(14)

GUNS, SAFETY, AND THE CONSTITUTION'S MEANING: INDIVIDUAL RIGHT OR SUBJECT TO REGULATION?

Guns, Safety, and the Constitution: Individual Right

ADVOCATE: Joyce Malcolm, Professor, Department of History, Bentley College and Senior Fellow, MIT Security Studies Program

SOURCE: "Infringement," Common Place, July 2002

Guns, Safety, and the Constitution: Subject to Regulation

ADVOCATE: Daniel A. Farber, Henry J. Fletcher Professor of Law and Associate Dean of Faculty and Research, University of Minnesota

SOURCE: "Disarmed by Time: The Second Amendment and the Failure of Originalism," Chicago-Kent Law Review, 2000

Also suitable for chapters on Courts, Civil Liberties, Criminal Justice Policy

2. FEDERALISM

(16)

FEDERAL REGULATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA: APPROPRIATE NATIONAL POWER OR USURPATION OF STATE AUTHORITY?

Federal Regulation of Medical Marijuana: Appropriate National Power

ADVOCATE: John Paul Stevens III, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

SOURCE: Opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, June 6, 2005

Federal Regulation of Medical Marijuana: Usurpation of State Authority

ADVOCATE: Sandra Day O'Connor, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court

SOURCE: Opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, June 6, 2005

Also suitable for chapters on Civil Rights, Courts. Constitution

3. CIVIL RIGHTS

(12)

EVALUATING THE "RIGHT TO AN ABORTION" DECISION IN ROE V WADE: POSITIVE IMPACT OR NEGATIVE IMPACT?

Evaluating the "Right to an Abortion" Decision in Roe v. Wade: Positive Impact

ADVOCATE: R. Alta Charo, Professor of Law and Bioethics; Associate Dean for Research and Faculty Development, University of Wisconsin Law School

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton," U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights June 23, 2005

Evaluating the "Right to an Abortion" Decision in Roe v. Wade: Negative Impact

ADVOCATE: Teresa Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Also suitable for chapters on Courts, American Political Culture/Ideology, Interest Groups

4. CIVIL LIBERTIES

(12)

CURRENT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE DOCTRINE: REASONABLE BALANCE OR SUPPRESSING PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF FAITH?

Current Separation of Church and State Doctrine: Reasonable Balance

ADVOCATE: Melissa Rogers, Professor, Wake Forest University Divinity School

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square," U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary June 8, 2004

Current Separation of Church and State Doctrine: Suppressing Public Displays of Faith

ADVOCATE: Vincent Phillip Munoz, Professor of Political Science, North Carolina State University and Civitas Fellow of Religion and Public Life, American Enterprise Institute

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square," U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary June 8, 2004

Also suitable for chapters on Courts, Political Culture (role of religion in politics)

5. AMERICAN PEOPLE/POLITICAL CULTURE

(16)

IMMIGRATION AS A THREAT TO "WHO WE ARE": VALID CONCERN OR UNFOUNDED FEAR?

Immigration as a Threat to "Who We Are": Valid Concern

ADVOCATE: John O'Sullivan, Editor-in-chief of the National Interest

SOURCE: "Who We Are," The American Conservative, July 19, 2004

Immigration as a Threat to "Who We Are": Unfounded Fear

ADVOCATE: Jim Sleeper, Lecturer in Political Science, Yale University

SOURCE: Review of Samuel Huntington's Who Are We?: The Challenges to America's National Identity, History News Network, May 3, 2004

Also suitable for chapters on Social Policy

6. PUBLIC OPINION/PARTICIPATION

(10)

VOLUNTEER BORDER PATROL GROUPS: LAUDABLE PATRIOTS OR DANGEROUS VIGILANTES?

Volunteer Border Patrol Groups: Laudable Patriots

ADVOCATE: Chris Simcox, President of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Securing Our Borders: What We Have Learned From Government Initiatives and Citizen Patrols," U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform, May 12, 2005

Volunteer Border Patrol Groups: Dangerous Vigilantes

ADVOCATE: Asheesh Siddique, Editor, The Princeton Progressive Review, Princeton University

SOURCE: "The New Nativism" Campus Progress News, Spring 2005

Also suitable for chapters on Civil Liberties, Foreign Policy

7. MEDIA

(14)

SHIELDING JOURNALISTS' SOURCES FROM SUBPOENA: PROTECTING DEMOCRACY OR IMPEDING JUSTICE?

Shielding Journalists' Sources from Subpoena: Protecting Democracy

ADVOCATE: Norman Pearlstine, Editor-in-Chief, Time Inc.

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Reporters' Shield Legislation: Issues and Implications," U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 20, 2005

Shielding Journalists' Sources from Subpoena: Impeding Justice

ADVOCATE: James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Reporters' Shield Legislation: Issues and Implications," U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 20, 2005

Also suitable for chapters on Public Opinion and Participation, Policy Process

8. INTEREST GROUPS

(12)

ETHNIC FOREIGN POLICY LOBBYING: MISPLACED ALLEGIANCE OR ALL-AMERICAN TRADITION?

Ethnic Foreign Policy Lobbying: Misplaced Allegiance

ADVOCATE: Geoffrey Wheatcroft, a British journalist

SOURCE: "Hyphenated Americans," Guardian Unlimited online, April 25, 2000

Ethnic Foreign Policy Lobbying: All-American Traditions

ADVOCATE: Yossi Shain, Aaron and Cecile Goldman Visiting Professor, Georgetown University; Professor of Political Science, Tel Aviv University

SOURCE: "For Ethnic Americans, The Old Country Calls," Foreign Service Journal, October 2000

Also suitable for chapters on Political Culture, Foreign Policy

9. POLITICAL PARTIES

108

(18)

HILLARY CLINTON AND THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: THE DEMOCRATS' BEST BET OR A PROBLEMATIC CANDIDATE?

Hillary Clinton and the 2008 Presidential Election: The Democrats' Best Bet

ADVOCATE: Carl Cannon, White House correspondent for the National Journal

SOURCE: "She Can Win the White House," Washington Monthly. July/August 2005

Hillary Clinton and the 2008 Presidential Election: A Problematic Candidate

ADVOCATE: Amy Sullivan, editor, Washington Monthly

SOURCE: "Not So Fast," Washington Monthly, July/August 2005

Also suitable for chapters on Elections

10. VOTING/CAMPAIGNS/ELECTIONS

126

(12)

THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE: ABOLISH OR PRESERVE?

The Electoral College: Abolish

ADVOCATE: Becky Cain, President, League of Women Voters

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Proposals for Electoral College Reform: H.J. Res. 28 and H.J. Res. 43" before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, September 4, 1997

The Electoral College: Preserve

ADVOCATE: Judith A. Best, Professor of Political Science, State University of New York at Cortland

Also suitable for chapters on Presidency, Federalism

11. CONGRESS

138

(12)

CONGRESSIONAL TERM LIMITS: PROMOTING CHOICE OR RESTRICTING CHOICE?

Congressional Term Limits: Promoting Choice

ADVOCATE: Paul Jacob, Executive Director, U.S. Term Limits

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Limiting Terms of Office for Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives," U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, January 22, 1997

Congressional Term Limits: Restricting Choice

ADVOCATE: John R. Hibbing, Professor of Political Science, University of Nebraska

Also suitable for chapters on Elections

12. PRESIDENCY

150

(14)

QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT: NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS ONLY OR ALL CITIZENS?

Qualified to Be President: Natural-Born Citizens Only

ADVOCATE: Matthew Spalding, Director, Center of American Studies, The Heritage Foundation

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans," before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004

Qualified to Be President: All Citizens

ADVOCATE: John Yinger, Professor of Economics and Public Administration, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans," before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004

Also suitable for chapters on Civil Liberties, Political Culture, Elections

13. BUREAUCRACY

164

(12)

THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND TITLE IX: CHAMPION OF EQUALITY OR OVERZEALOUS CRUSADER?

The Department of Education and Title IX: Champion of Equality

ADVOCATE: Judith Sweet, Vice-President for Championships and Senior Women Administrator, National Collegiate Athletic Association

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Secretary's Commission on Opportunity in Athletics, Hearings, August 27, 2002

The Department of Education and Title IX: Overzealous Crusader

ADVOCATE: Amanda Ross-Edwards, Visiting Professor of Political Science, Fairfield University

SOURCE: "The Department of Education and Title IX: Flawed Interpretation and Implementation," an essay written especially for this volume, October 2003

Also suitable for chapters on Civil Rights, Education Policy

14. JUDICIARY

176

(16)

FILIBUSTERING FEDERAL COURT NOMINEES: FRUSTRATING THE MAJORITY OR PROTECTING THE MINORITY?

Filibustering Federal Court Nominees: Frustrating the Majority

ADVOCATE: Orrin G. Hatch, U.S. Senator (R-UT)

SOURCE: Congressional Record, May 10, 2005

Filibustering Federal Court Nominees: Protecting the Minority

ADVOCATE: Harry F. Byrd, U.S. Senator (D-WV)

SOURCE: Congressional Record, March 1, 2005

Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Congress

15. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

192

(14)

TAKING PROPERTY BY EMINENT DOMAIN FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: SERVING THE PUBLIC GOOD OR ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT POWER?

Taking Property by Eminent Domain for Economic Development: Serving the Public Good

ADVOCATES: Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and 31 other state municipal league

SOURCE: Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London (2005)

Taking Property by Eminent Domain for Economic Development: Abuse of Government Power

ADVOCATE: Institute for Justice, representing Suzette Kelo and 8 other petitioners

SOURCE: Brief of Petitioners to the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London (2005)

Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Courts, Economic Policy

16. ECONOMIC POLICY

206

(12)

CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRE A BALANCED BUDGET: FISCAL SANITY OR IRRESPONSIBILITY?

Constitutionally Require a Balanced Budget: Fiscal Sanity

ADVOCATE: William Beach, Director, Center for Data Analysis, Heritage Foundation

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on the "Balanced Budget Amendment" before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 6, 2003

Constitutionally Require a Balanced Budget: Fiscal Irresponsibility

ADVOCATE: Richard Kogan, Senior Fellow, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on the "Balanced Budget Amendment" before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, March 6, 2003

Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Congress, Economic Policy

17. CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

218

(12)

THE DEATH PENALTY: RACIALLY BIASED OR JUSTICE SERVED?

Racially Biased

ADVOCATE: Julian Bond, Professor of History, University of Virginia and Distinguished Professor-in-Residence, American University

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Race and the Federal Death Penalty," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, June 13, 2001

Justice Served

ADVOCATE: Andrew G. McBride, former U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General

SOURCE: Testimony during hearings on "Race and the Federal Death Penalty," before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Constitution, Federalism, and Property Rights, June 13, 2001

Also suitable for chapters on Civil Rights

18. EDUCATION POLICY

230

(14)

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADMISSIONS: PROMOTING EQUALITY OR UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?

Promoting Equality

ADVOCATES: 41 College Students and 3 Student Coalitions

SOURCE: Amicus Curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bolligner (2003)

Unfair Advantage

ADVOCATES: 21 Law Professors

SOURCE: Amicus Curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bolligner (2003)

Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Civil Rights

19. FOREIGN POLICY

244

(18)

U.S. MILITARY FORCES IN IRAQ: STAY THE COURSE OR WITHDRAW QUICKLY?

U.S. Military Forces in Iraq: Stay the Course

ADVOCATE: George W. Bush, President of the United States

SOURCE: Address to the nation, July 28, 2005

U.S. Military Forces in Iraq: Withdraw Quickly

ADVOCATES: Wesley B. Renfro and Brian Urlacher, doctoral students, Department of Political Science, University of Connecticut

SOURCE: "With Civil War Looming the United States Must Withdrawal from Iraq," an essay written especially for this volume, October 2005

Also suitable for chapters on Policymaking, National Security Policy

20. URBAN POLICY

262

(15)

REBUILDING ORLEANS: NATIONAL IMPERATIVE OR EMOTIONAL MISTAKE?

Rebuilding New Orleans: National Imperative

ADVOCATE: James R, Stoner, Jr., professor of political science at Louisiana State University

SOURCE: "Saving a Great City: Why America Should Rebuild New Orleans," The Weekly Standard (September 26, 2005)

Rebuilding New Orleans: Emotional Mistake

ADVOCATE: Edward Glaeser, Professor of Economics and Director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston and the Taubman Center for State and Local Government, Harvard University

SOURCE: "Should the Government Rebuild New Orleans, Or Just Give Residents Checks?" The Economists' Voice, September, 2005

Also suitable for chapters on State and Local Government, Economic Policy

CREDITS

277

You Decide! Current Debates in American Politics, 2006 Edition

9780321411082

Rent Textbook

Used Textbook

eTextbook

New Textbook

Related Products

Summary

Table of Contents