Top

Amazon no longer offers textbook rentals. We do!

You Decide! 2011 : Current Debates in American Politics

by: Rourke, John T.

You Decide! 2011 : Current Debates in American Politics

by: Rourke, John T.

ISBN 13:
9780205114894
ISBN 10:
020511489X
Format: Paperback
Copyright: 12/22/2010
Publisher: Pearson
Newer Edition

Rent

Sorry, this item is currently unavailable.

Free Shipping On Every Order

Note: Supplemental materials are not guaranteed with Rental or Used book purchases.

Extend or Purchase Your Rental at Any Time

Need to keep your rental past your due date? At any time before your due date you can extend or purchase your rental through your account.

You Decide! 2011 : Current Debates in American Politics > ISBN13: 9780205114894

Summary

Each year this best-selling, debate-style reader examines the most timely, important, and provocative issues in American politics.#xA0;#xA0; You Decide! Current Debates in American Politics,#xA0;8th edition draws#xA0;the reader#xA0;into the key topics that have made headlines and affected our political system during 2010 and#xA0;will continue to affect our daily lives in 2011. #xA0; Designed to#xA0;engage the reader#xA0;and promote critical thinking#xA0;about our political system, the topics featured in You Decide!have been selected for their currency, importance, and interest.#xA0; The pieces, arguing various sides of a given political issue, come from recent journals, congressional hearings, think tanks, and periodicals.#xA0;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Supplemental Materials

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 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.