You Decide! 2012
, by Rourke, John T.
- ISBN: 9780205865420 | 0205865429
- Cover: Paperback
- Copyright: 12/15/2011
Updated annually, in its ninth edition, You Decide!is a best-selling, debate-style reader that examines the most timely, important, and provocative issues in American politics. Topics selected for this text argue various sides of a given political issue and come from recent journals, congressional hearings, think tanks, and periodicals. You Decide!draws readers into the key topics that have made headlines and affected our political system during 2011 and will continue to affect our daily lives in 2012.
1. CONSTITUTON - THE MANDATE THAT INDIVIDUALS BUY HEALTH INSURANCE: NECESSARY AND PROPER OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL REQUIREMENT?
The Mandate That Individuals Buy Health Insurance: Necessary and Proper
Advocate: John Kroger, Attorney General of Oregon
Source: Testimony during hearings on “The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act,” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, February 2, 2011
The Mandate That Individuals Buy Health Insurance: Unconstitutional Requirement
Advocate: Kenneth T. Cuccinelli, II, Attorney General Of Virginia
Source: Testimony during hearings on “The Constitutionality of the Individual Mandate,” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, February 16, 2011
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 - REQUIRING PHOTO IDENTIFICATION TO VOTE: PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF ELECTION OR SUPPRESSING VOTER TURNOUT?
Requiring Photo Identification to Vote: Protecting the Integrity of Elections
Advocate: Hans von Spakovsky, Senior Legal Fellow, Center for Legal & Judicial Studies, Heritage Foundation
Source: “Voter Photo Identification: Protecting the Security of Elections,” Legal Memorandum #70, Heritage Foundation, July 13, 2011
Requiring Photo Identification to Vote: Suppressing Voter Turnout
Advocate: Shirley Jackson Lee, Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Texas.
Source: “Voter Suppresion and Voter ID,” remarks to the U.S. House of Representatives, Congressional Record, July 19, 2011
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 - TEA PARTY MEMBERS: IRRESPONSIBLE ZEALOTS OR RESPONSIBLY DISSENTING CITIZENS?
Tea Party Members: Irresponsible Zealots
Advocate: Frank Lautenberg, Member, U.S. Senate, Democrat, New Jersey
Source: "Toxic Tea,” remarks to the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record, March 10, 2011
Tea Party Members: Responsibly Dissenting Citizens
Advocate: Mitch McConnell, Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, Republican, Kentucky
Source: "Tea Party,” remarks to the U.S. Senate, Congressional Record, March 31, 2011.
10. VOTING/CAMPAIGNS/ELECTIONS - ELECTING THE PRESIDENT: ADOPT THE NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE PLAN OR PRESERVE ECECTORAL 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)
Also suitable for chapters on Presidency, Federalism
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 - BARACK OBAMA’S USE OF THE PRESIDENT’S WAR POWERS: REASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE?
Barack Obama’s Use of the President’s War Powers: Reasonable
Advocate: Hongju Koh, Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Libya and War Powers,” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, June 28, 2011
Barack Obama’s Use of the President’s War Powers: Excessive
Advocate: Louis Fisher, Scholar in Residence, Constitution Project
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Libya and War Powers,” before the U.S. Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations, June 28, 2011
13. BUREAUCRACY - THE NEW CONSUMER FINANCIAL PROTECTION BUREAU: CONSUMER GUARDIAN OR DANGEROUS BUREAUCRACY?
The New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Consumer Guardian
Advocate: Elizabeth Warren, Special Advisor to the Secretary of the Treasury for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
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
The New Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: Dangerous Bureaucracy
Advocate: Todd Zywicki, Foundation Professor of Law, George Mason University
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Who’s Watching the Watchmen? Oversight Of The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Oversight and Government Relations, Subcommittee on TARP, Financial Services, and Bailouts of Public and Private Programs, May 24, 2011
14. JUDICIARY - 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
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 - ADDING A BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION: FISCAL IMPERATIVE OR UNNECESSARY AND UNWISE
Adding A Balanced Budget Amendment To The Constitution: Fiscal Imperative
Advocate: Andrew Moylan, Vice President of Government Affairs National Taxpayers Union
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Should the Constitution be Amended to Address the Federal Deficit” held before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 13, 2011
Adding A Balanced Budget Amendment To The Constitution: Unnecessary And Unwise
Advocate: Robert Greenstein, President, Center on Budget and Policy Priorities
Source: Testimony during hearings on ““Should the Constitution be Amended to Address the Federal Deficit” held before U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution. May 13, 2011
17. NATIONAL SECURITY POLICY - TRYING THOSE ACCUSED OF TERRORISM: USE CIVILIAN COURTS OR USE MILITARY COMMISSIONS?
Trying Those Accused of Terrorism: Use Civilian Courts
Advocate: Stephen A. Saltzburg, Wallace And Beverley Woodbury University Professor, George Washington University Law School
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Justice for America: Using Military Commissions to Try the 9/11 Conspirators” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Crime, Terrorism And Homeland Security, April 5, 2011
Trying Those Accused of Terrorism: Use Military Commissions
Advocate: Stephanie Hessler, Adjunct Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy Studies
Source: Testimony during hearings on “Justice for America: Using Military Commissions to Try the 9/11 Conspirators” before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee On Crime, Terrorism And Homeland Security, April 5, 2011
EXTENDED TABLE OF CONTENTS:
WEB ISSUES
The following topics are available on the Web at:
http://www.ablongman.com/long_rourke_YD_2012/
18. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY - FEDERAL POLICLY REGARDING GLOBAL WARMING: TAKE STRONGER ACTION NOW OR PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY AT BEST?
Federal Policy Regarding Global Warming: Take Stronger Action Now
Advocate: Kerry Emanuel, Breene M. Kerr Professor of Atmospheric Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Source: Testimony on “Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy” during hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, March 31st 2011
Federal Policy Regarding Global Warming: Proceed Cautiously At Best
Advocate: W. David Montgomery, Economist and Consultant specializing in environmental issues
Source: Testimony on “Climate Change: Examining the Processes Used to Create Science and Policy” during hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, March 31st 2011
19. 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
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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)
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.
Please wait while the item is added to your bag...
Review
Flag Review
×
Digital License
You are licensing a digital product for a set duration. Durations are set forth in the product description, with "Lifetime" typically meaning five (5) years of online access and permanent download to a supported device. All licenses are non-transferable.
More details can be found here.