Rent 9780321333438 | You Decide! 2005 Edition | Rourke, John T @knetbooks.com

Summary Table of Contents

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 critica... MORE

Preface

Constitution

(14)

Guns, Safety, and the Constitution: Individual Right or Subject to Regulation?

... MORE

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

(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

(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

(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

(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

(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

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

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

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