Top
Free Shipping On Orders Over $35!
Get Rewarded for Ordering Your Textbooks! Enroll Now
Customer Reviews Read Reviews
Write a Review
1. CONSTITUTON - DECIDING ON THE CONSTITUTION’S MEANING: RELY ON THE ORIGNAL AUTHORS OR INTERPRET IN LIGHT OF MODERN CIRCUMSTANCES?
Deciding the Constitution’s Meaning: Rely on the Original Authors
Advocate: Keith E. Whittington, William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Politics, Princeton University.
Source: “Originalism Within the Living Constitution,” Advance: The Journal of the American Constitution Society Issues Groups, Fall 2007
Deciding the Meaning of the Constitution: Interpret in Light of Modern Circumstances
Advocate: Erwin Chemerinsky, Alston & Bird Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University
Source: “Constitutional Interpretation for the Twenty-first Century,” Advance: The Journal of the American Constitution Society Issues Groups, Fall 2007
2. FEDERALISM - ARIZONA’S LAW ENCOURAGING CITIZEN IDENTITY CHECKS BY POLICE: STATE INTRUSION INTO NATIONAL POLICY OR PERMISSIBLE STATE ACTION?
Arizona’s Law Encouraging Citizen Identity Checks by Police: State Intrusion into National Policy
Advocate: Attorneys representing the U.S. government seeking to enjoin the enforcement of Arizona’s S.B. 1070
Source: The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants, Case 2:10-cv-01413, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, July 6, 2010
Arizona ’s Law Encouraging Citizen Identity Checks by Police: Permissible State Action
Advocate: Attorneys representing Arizona and its governor, Janice K. Brewer, seeking to block a petition by the U.S. government to enjoin the enforcement of Arizona’s S.B. 1070
Source: The United States of America, Plaintiff, v. The State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants, Case 2:10-cv-01413, U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, July 20, 2010
3. CIVIL LIBERTIES - THE PHRASE “UNDER GOD” IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT OR ACCEPTABLE TRADITIONAL EXPRESSION?
The Phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance: Violation of the First Amendment
Advocate: Douglas Laycock, Professor, School of Law, University of Texas; and Counsel of Record for 32 Christian and Jewish clergy filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Elk Gove School District v. Newdow
Source: A discussion of the topic “Under God? Pledge of Allegiance Constitutionality,” sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and held before the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., March 19. 2004
The Phrase “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance: Acceptable Traditional Expression
Advocate: Jay Alan Sekulow, Chief Counsel, American Center for Law and Justice; and Counsel of Record for 76 members of Congress and the Committee to Protect the Pledge filing an amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in Elk Gove School District v. Newdow
Source: A discussion of the topic “Under God? Pledge of Allegiance Constitutionality,” sponsored by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life and held before the National Press Club, Washington, D.C., March 19, 2004
4. CIVIL RIGHTS - CALIFORNIA’S PROPOSITION 8 BARRING GAY MARRIAGES: EQUAL RIGHTS VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION OR VALID STATE LAW?
California’s Proposition 8 Barring Gay Marriages: Equal Rights Violation of the U.S. Constitution
Advocate: Attorneys representing plaintiffs Kristen M. Perry, et al. seeking to have California’s constitutional clause barring gay marriage declared a violation of the U.S. Constitution
Source: Kristin M. Perry, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., Defendants, and Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors; Case 3:09-cv-02292-VRW; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Responses to Court’s Questions for Closing Arguments, June 15, 2010
California’s Proposition 8 Barring Gay Marriages: Valid State Law
Advocate: Attorneys representing Proposition 8 official proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., seeking to have California’s constitutional clause barring gay marriage upheld
Source: Kristin M. Perry, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, et al., Defendants, and Proposition 8 Official Proponents Dennis Hollingsworth, et al., Defendant-Intervenors; Case 3:09-cv-02292-VRW; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Responses to Court’s Questions for Closing Arguments, June 15, 2010
5. AMERICAN PEOPLE/POLITICAL CULTURE - THE CULTURAL ASSIMILATION OF IMMIGRANTS: THE MELTING POT IS BROKEN OR BLENDING SATISFACTORILY?
The Cultural Assimilation of Immigrants: The Melting Pot Is Broken
Advocate: John Fonte, Director, Center for American Common Culture, Hudson Institute
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans—U.S Immigrant Integration” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, May 16, 2007
The Cultural Assimilation of Immigrants: Blending Satisfactorily
Advocate: Gary Gerstle, James Stahlman Professor of History, Department of History, Vanderbilt University
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Becoming Americans—U.S Immigrant Integration” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Immigration Citizenship, Refugees, Border Security, and International Law, May 16, 2007
6. PARTICIPATION - ALLOWING NONCITIZENS TO VOTE: EXPANDING DEMOCRACY OR UNDERMINING CITIZENSHIP?
Allowing Noncitizens to Vote: Expanding Democracy
Advocate: Ron Hayduk, Associate Professor of Political Science, Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY
Source: “The Case for Immigrant Voting Rights,” an original essay, 2009
Allowing Noncitizens to Vote: Undermining Citizenship
Advocate: Stanley Renshon, Professor of Political Science, City University of New York Graduate Center
Source: “The Debate Over Non-Citizen Voting: A Primer,” on the Web site of the Center for Immigration Studies, April 2008
7. MEDIA - THE FUTURE OF QUALITY JOURNALISM: IMPERILED OR SECURE?
The Future of Quality Journalism: Imperiled
Advocate: David Simon, creator and executive producer of the HBO television series The Wire
Source: Testimony during hearings on Senate Subcommittee on "The Future of Journalism" before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, May 6, 2009
The Future of Quality Journalism: Secure
Advocate: Arianna Huffington, founder of the Huffington Post
Source: Testimony during hearings on "The Future of Journalism" before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet, May 6, 2009
8. INTEREST GROUPS - PERMITTING CORPORATIONS TO PARTICIPATE IN ELECTION CAMPAIGNS: A BLOW TO DEMOCRACY OR CONSTITUTIONALLY APPROPRIATE?
Permitting Corporations to Participate in Election Campaigns: A Blow to Democracy
Advocates: Monica Youn, Counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice at the New York University School of Law
Source: Testimony during hearings on the “First Amendment and Campaign Finance Reform After Citizens United,” before the Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, February 3, 2010
Permitting Corporations to Participate in Election Campaigns: Constitutionally Appropriate
Advocate: M. Todd Henderson, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School.
Source: “Citizens United: A Defense,” Faculty Blog, University of Chicago Law School. March 12, 2010
9. POLITICAL PARTIES - THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE OF PARTY POLITICS: DOMINANT DEMOCRATS OR RESURGENT REPUBLICANS?
The Foreseeable Future of Party Politics: Dominant Democrats
Advocates: David W. Brady, Professor of Political Science; Douglas Rivers, Professor of political science; and Laurel Harbridge, graduate student in political science, all at Stanford University
Source: "The 2008 Democratic Shift," Policy Review (December, 2008)
The Foreseeable Future Of Party Politics: Resurgent Republicans
Advocate: Jay Cost, political analyst and blogger, Real Clear Politics
Source: "The 'Enduring Majority'--Again: No, the Democrats Will Not Be in Power Forever," National Review (June 8, 2009)
10. VOTING, CAMPAIGNS & ELECTIONS - ELECTING THE PRESIDENT ADOPT THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN OR PRESERVE ELECTORAL COLLEGE?
Electing the President: Adopt the National Popular Vote Plan
Advocate: National Popular Vote, an advocacy organization
Source: “Agreement among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote, from the Web site of National Popular Vote, April 29, 2009
Electing The President: Preserve the Electoral College
Advocate: John Samples, Director, Center for Representative Government, Cato Institute
Source: “A Critique of he National Popular Vote Plan for Electing the President,” Policy Analysis (October 13, 2008)
11. CONGRESS - SENATE FILIBUSTERS: BLOCKING MAJORITY RULE OR PREVENTING MAJORITY TYRANNY?
Senate Filibusters: Blocking Majority Rule
Advocate: Thomas E. Mann, W. Averell Harriman Chair and Senior Fellow, Brookings Institution
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Examining the Filibuster: Legislative Proposals to Change Senate Procedures” before the Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate, June 23, 2010
Senate Filibusters: Preventing Majority Tyranny
Advocate: Lee Rawls Faculty member, National War College and Adjunct Professor, College of William and Mary
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Examining the Filibuster: Legislative Proposals to Change Senate Procedures” before the Committee on Rules and Administration, U.S. Senate, June 23, 2010
12. PRESIDENCY - THE WAR POWERS OF THE PRESIDENT: CURB OR LEAVE AS IS?
The War Powers of the President: Curb
Advocate: Jules Lobel, Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh
Source: Testimony during hearings on “War Powers for the 21st Century: The Constitutional Perspective” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, April 24, 2008
The War Powers of the President: Leave As Is
Advocate: Stephen G. Rademaker, Senior Counsel, BGR Holding and former Associate White House Counsel to President George H.W. Bush
Source: Testimony during hearings on “War Powers for the 21st Century: The Executive Branch Perspective” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on International Organizations, Human Rights, and Oversight, April 24, 2008
13. BUREAUCRACY - POLICY POSITIONS OF FEDERAL AGENCIES: REFLECT THE PRESIDENT’S POSITION OR BE DETERMINED INDEPENDENTLY?
Policy Positions of Federal Agencies: Reflect the President’s Position
Advocate: James L. Gattuso, Senior Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy, Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, Heritage Foundation
Source: Testimony during hearings on “The Rulemaking Process and Unitary Executive Theory” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, May 6, 2008
Policy Positions of Federal Agencies: Be Determined Interdependently
Advocate: Peter L. Strauss, Betts Professor of Law, Columbia University Law School
Source: Testimony during hearings on “The Rulemaking Process and Unitary Executive Theory” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law, May 6, 2008
14. JUDICIARY - ELENA KAGAN’S NOMINATION TO THE SUPREME COURT: FLAWED OR WORTH OF CONFIRMATION
Elena Kagan’s Nomination to the Supreme Court: Flawed
Advocate: Charles Grassley, Republican U.S. Senator, Iowa
Source: Debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record, August 3, 2010
Elena Kagan’s Nomination to the Supreme Court: Worthy of Confirmation
Advocate: Lindsey Graham, Republican U.S. Senator, North Carolina
Source: Debate on the floor of the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record, August 3, 2010
15. STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT - ALLOWING STATES TO COLLECT SALES TAXES ON INTERSTATE COMMERCE
LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD OR A THREAT TO ELECTRONIC COMMERCE?
Allowing States to Collect Sales Taxes on Interstate Commerce: Leveling the Playing Field
Advocate: Steven Rauschenberger, past President, National Conference of State Legislatures
Source: Testimony during hearings on “H.R. 3396 — The Sales Tax Fairness and Simplification Act” before the House Of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Administrative And Commercial Law, December 6, 2007
Allowing States To Collect Sales Taxes On Interstate Commerce: A Threat To Electronic Commerce
Advocate: George S. Isaacson, Tax Counsel for the Direct Marketing Association
Source: Testimony during hearings on “H.R. 3396 - The Sales Tax Fairness And Simplification Act” before the House Of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Administrative And Commercial Law, December 6, 2007
16. BUDGETARY POLICY - REDUCING FEDERAL BUDGET DEFICITS: FOCUS ON INCREASING REVENUE OR FOCUS ON REDUCING SPENDING?
Reducing Federal Budget Deficits: Focus on Increasing Revenue
Advocate: Leonard E. Burman, Daniel Patrick Moynihan Professor of Public Affairs. Maxwell School, Syracuse University
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Taxes and the Budget” before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, March 23, 2010
Reducing Federal Budget Deficits: Focus on Reducing Spending
Advocate: Douglas Holtz-Eakin, President, American Action Forum
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Taxes and the Budget” before the Subcommittee on Select Revenue Measures, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives, March 23, 2010
BONUS ISSUES ONLINE
17. NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY - U.S. TROOPS IN AFGHANISTAN: STAY THE COURSE OR WITHDRAW QUICKLY?
U.S. Troops in Afghanistan: Stay the Course
Advocate: Michèle P. Flournoy, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Defense
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Developments in Afghanistan” before the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, June 15, 2010
U.S. Troops in Afghanistan: Withdraw Quickly
Advocate: Shirley Jackson Lee, Democrat, House of Representatives, Texas.
Source: Floor Debate on House Concurrent Resolution 248, “Removal of United States Armed Forces from Afghanistan,” Congressional Record, March 10, 2010
18. ANTITERRORISM POLICY - PRESIDENT OBAMA’S ANTI-TERRORISM POLICY: ENDANGERING AMERICA OR PROTECTING AMERICAN LIVES AND PRINCIPLES?
President Obama’s Anti-Terrorism Policy: Endangering America
Advocate: Richard B. Cheney, former Vice President of the United States
Source: Speech delivered at the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009
President Obama’s Anti-Terrorism Policy: Protecting American Lives and Principles
Advocate: Barack Obama, President of the United States
Source: Speech delivered at the National Archives Museum, Washington, D.C., May 21, 2009
19. ENERGY POLICY - INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF NUCLEAR POWER: SENSIBLE SOLUTION OR UNNECESSARY DANGER?
Increase the Supply of Nuclear Power: Sensible Solution
Advocate: Alex Flint, Senior Vice President, Governmental Affairs, Nuclear Energy Institute
Source: Testimony during hearings on before the House of Representative, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, March 12, 2008
Increase the Supply of Nuclear Power: Unnecessary Danger
Advocate: Sharon A. Squassoni, Senior Associate, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?” before House of Representative, Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, March 12, 2008
20. CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY - THE DEATH PENALTY: FATALLY FLAWED OR DEFENSIBLE?
The Death Penalty: Fatally Flawed
Advocate: Stephen B. Bright. Director, Southern Center for Human Rights, Atlanta, Georgia; Visiting Lecturer in Law, Harvard and Yale Law Schools
Source: Testimony during hearings on “An Examination of the Death Penalty in the United States” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 1, 2006
The Death Penalty: Defensible
Advocate: John McAdams, Professor of Political Science, Marquette University
Source: Testimony during hearings on “An Examination of the Death Penalty in the United States” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, February 1, 2006
21. SOCIAL WELFARE POLICY POVERTY IN AMERICA: BAD AND GETTING WORSE OR NOT BAD AND GETTING BETTER?
Poverty in America: Bad and Getting Worse
Advocate: John Podesta, President, Center for American Progress
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America” before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways & Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, April 26, 2007
Poverty in America: Not Bad and Getting Better
Advocate: Robert Rector, Senior Policy Analyst, The Heritage Foundation
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Economic Opportunity and Poverty in America” before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Ways & Means, Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, April 26, 2007
22. WOMEN’S RIGHTS POLICY - ACHIEVING GENDER PAY EQUITY: TOUGHER LAWS NEEDED OR CURRENT LAW SATISFACTORY?
Achieving Gender Pay Equity: Tougher Laws Needed
Advocate: Marcia D. Greenberger, Co-President, National Women’s Law Center
Source: Testimony during hearings on the “Paycheck Fairness Act” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Education and Labor, Subcommittee on Workforce Protection, July 11, 2007
Achieving Gender Pay Equity: Current Law Satisfactory
Advocate: Barbara Berish Brown, Chair, Washington, D.C. office of Paul, Hastings, Janofsky & Walker and Vice-Chair, Labor & Employment Law Section, American Bar Association
Source: Testimony during hearings on the “Paycheck Fairness Act” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions, April 12, 2007
23. EDUCATION POLICY - ASSIGNING STUDENTS TO SCHOOLS BASED ON RACE: JUSTIFIED OR UNACCEPTABLE?
Assigning Students to Schools Based on Race: Justified
Advocate: National Education Association, et al.
Source: Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
Assigning Students to Schools Based on Race: Unacceptable
Advocate: Asian American Legal Foundation
Source: Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 (2007)
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 access cards, study guides, lab manuals, CDs, etc.
The Used, Rental and eBook copies of this book are not guaranteed to include any supplemental materials. Typically, only the book itself is included. This is true even if the title states it includes any access cards, study guides, lab manuals, CDs, etc.
Need Help? Copyright © 1999-2024