You Decide! 2005 Edition

by Rourke, John T

• ISBN13: 9780321333438
• ISBN10: 0321333438
• Edition: 2nd
• Format: Paperback
• Copyright: 2005-01-01
• Publisher: Longman

Summary

This best selling reader has been revised due to popular demand. This debate-style reader edited by John Rourkeexamines provocative issues in American politics today. The second edition includes new topics on gay marriage, pornography, immigration and more. 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! is FREE when ordered packaged with any Longman American government textbook.

Table of Contents

Preface	xv
Constitution	2	(14)
Guns, Safety, and the Constitution: 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
Federalism	16	(18)
Deciding About Gay Marriage: Make it a Federal Issue or Leave it to the States?
Deciding about Gay Marriage: Make It a Federal Issue
Advocate: Orrin Hatch, U.S. Senator (R-UT)
Source: Congressional Record, July 9, 2004
Deciding about Gay Marriage: Leave It to the States
Advocate: Patrick Leahy, U.S. Senator (D-VT)
Source: Statement during hearings on ``A Proposed Constitutional Amendment'' before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, March 23, 2004
Also suitable for chapters on Civil Rights, Courts, Constitution
Civil Rights	34	(22)
Banning D&X (Partial-Birth) Abortions: Violating Women's Rights or Protecting Fetal Rights?
Banning D&X (Partial-Birth) Abortions: Violating Women's Rights
Advocate: Center for Reproductive Rights
Source: Position paper, ``Unconstitutional Assault on the Right to Choose: `Partial-Birth Abortion' Ban Is an Affront to Women and to the U.S. Supreme Court,'' February 2003
Banning D&X (Partial-Birth) Abortions: Protecting Fetal Rights
Advocate: Kathi A. Aultman, board certified obstetrician gynecologist, and Fellow, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
Source: Testimony during hearings the ``Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2002'' before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, July 9, 2002
Also suitable for chapters on Courts, American Political Culture/Ideology, Interest Groups
Civil Liberties	56	(16)
Requiring Registration to Access Internet Pornography: Abridging Free Speech or Safeguarding Children?
Requiring Registration to Access Internet Pornography: Abridging Free Speech
Advocate: Anthony M. Kennedy, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
Source: Opinion in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, June 29, 2004
Requiring Registration to Access Internet Pornography: Safeguarding Children
Advocate: Stephen G. Breyer, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
Source: Opinion in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, June 29, 2004
Also suitable for chapters on Courts, Political Culture (freedom v. safety), Criminal Justice
American People/Political Culture	72	(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
Public Opinion/Participation	88	(16)
Post-9/11 Criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy: Un-American or Patriotic
Post-9/11 Criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy: Un-American
Advocate: Victor Davis Hanson, Shifrin Visiting Professor of Military History, U.S. Naval Academy, Annapolis
Source: ``I Love Iraq, Bomb Texas,'' Commentary, December 2002
Post-9/11 Criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy: Patriotic
Advocate: Gore Vidal, novelist, playwright, and essayist
Source: ``We Are the Patriots,'' The Nation, June 2003
Also suitable for chapters on Civil Liberties, Foreign Policy
Media	104	(12)
Use of Polls by the Media: Out of Control or Valid Reporting?
Use of Polls by the Media: Out of Control
Advocate: Lori Robertson, Managing Editor, American Journalism Review
Source: ``Poll Crazy,'' American Journalism Review, January/February 2003
Use of Polls by the Media: Valid Reporting
Advocate: Bill McInturff and Lori Weigel, partners, Public Opinion Strategies, a national survey research firm
Source: ``Servants of the People: Political Leadership and the Public Voice,'' Public Perspective, July/August 2001
Also suitable for chapters on Elections, Public Opinion, and Policy Process
Interest Groups	116	(12)
Ethnic Foreign Policy Lobbying: Misplaced Allegience 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 Tradition
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 and Foreign Policy
Political Parties	128	(18)
The Odds-On Favorite in the Future: Democrats or Republicans?
The Odds-On Favorite in the Future: Democrats
Advocate: John B. Judis, Senior Editor, The New Republic, and Ruy Teixeira, Senior Fellow, the Century Foundation
Source: ``Americas Changing Political Geography: Where Democrats Can Build a Majority,'' Blueprint: Ideas for a New Century, September/October 2002
The Odds-On Favorite in the Future: Republicans
Advocate: Daniel Casse, Senior Director, White House Writers Group
Source: ``An Emerging Republican Majority?'' Commentary, January 2003
Also suitable for chapters on Elections
Voting/Campaigns/Elections	146	(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
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
Also suitable for chapters on Presidency, Federalism
Congress	158	(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,'' before the 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
Source: Testimony during hearings on ``Limiting Terms of Office for Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives,'' before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, January 22, 1997
Also suitable for chapters on Elections
Presidency	170	(16)
Presidential War Powers and Terrorism: Unilateral Authority or Constitutional Constraints?
Presidential War Power and Terrorism: Unilateral Authority
Advocate: Douglas Kmiec, Dean of the Columbus School of Law, The Catholic University of America
Source: Testimony during hearings on ``Applying the War Powers Resolution to the War on Terrorism,'' before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 17, 2002
Presidential War Power and Terrorism: Constitutional Constraints
Advocate: Jane Stromseth, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center
Source: Testimony during hearings on ``Applying the War Powers Resolution to the War on Terrorism,'' before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, April 17, 2002
Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Foreign Policy, National Security Policy
Bureaucracy	186	(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 for this volume, October 2003
Also suitable for chapters on Civil Rights, Education Policy
Judiciary	198	(28)
Legal Philosophy as a Qualification for the Bench: Judicious Standard Or Obstructionist Barrier?
Legal Philosophy as a Qualification for the Bench: Judicious Standard
Advocate: Laurence H. Tribe, Professor, Harvard Law School
Source: Testimony during hearings on ``Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution: When a Majority Is Denied Its Right to Consent,'' before U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, May 6, 2002
Legal Philosophy as a Qualification for the Bench: Obstructionist Barrier
Advocate: Todd F. Gaziano, Senior Fellow in Legal Studies and Director, Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, The Heritage Foundation
Source: Testimony during hearings on ``A Judiciary Diminished Is Justice Denied: The Constitution, the Senate, and the Vacancy Crisis in the Federal Judiciary'' before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, October 10, 2002
Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Congress
Economic Policy	226	(12)
Constitutionally Require a Balanced Budget: Fiscal Sanity or Fiscal 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
Criminal Justice Policy	238	(12)
The Death Penalty: Racially Biased or Justice Served?
The Death Penalty: 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
The Death Penalty: 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
Education Policy	250	(14)
Affirmative Action Admissions: Promoting Equality or Unfair Advantage?
Affirmative Action Admissions: Promoting Equality
Advocate: 41 College Students and 3 Student Coalitions
Source: Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Affirmative Action Admissions: Unfair Advantage
Advocate: 21 Law Professors
Source: Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)
Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Civil Rights
Foreign Policy	264	(25)
Torturing Terrorists: Sometimes Justified or Always Abhorrent?
Torturing Terrorists: Sometimes Justified
Advocate: Robert G. Kennedy, Professor of Management, University of St. Thomas
Source: ``Can Interrogatory Torture Be Morally Legitimate?,'' paper presented at the Joint Services Conference on Professional Ethics, U.S. Air Force Academy, January 2003
Torturing Terrorists: Always Abhorrent
Advocate: Lisa Hajjar, Professor of Sociology, Law and Society Program, University of California-Santa Barbara
Source: ``Torture and the Future,'' Middle East Report Online, May 2004
Also suitable for chapters on Civil Liberties, Criminal Justice, National Security Policy
Credits	289