M Ethan Katsh

Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues

• Broschiertes Buch

Produktbeschreibung

The Taking Sides Collection on McGraw-Hill Create® includes current controversial issues in a debate-style forma designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. This Collection contains a multitude of current and classic issues to enhance and customize your course. You can browse the entire Taking Sides Collection on Create or you can search by topic, author, or keywords. Each Taking Sides issue is thoughtfully framed with Learning Outcomes, an Issue Summary, an Introduction, and an "Exploring the Issue" section featuring Critical Thinking and Reflection, Is There Common Ground?, Additional Resources, and Internet References. Go to the Taking Sides Collection on McGraw-Hill Create® at www.mcgrawhillcreate.com/takingsides and click on "Explore this Collection" to browse the entire Collection. Select individual Taking Sides issues to enhance your course, or access and select the entire Katsh, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, 18/e book here http://create.mheducation.com/createonline/index.html#qlink=search%2Ftext%3Disbn:125988368X for an easy, pre-built teaching resource. Visit http://create.mheducation.com for more information on other McGraw-Hill titles and special collections.

---

Hinweis: Dieser Artikel kann nur an eine deutsche Lieferadresse ausgeliefert werden.

Produktdetails

• Verlag: Dushkin Publishing
• 18th edition
• Seitenzahl: 352
• Erscheinungstermin: 8. September 2017
• Englisch
• Abmessung: 272mm x 216mm x 13mm
• Gewicht: 726g
• ISBN-13: 9781259883682
• ISBN-10: 125988368X
• Artikelnr.: 49091180

Inhaltsangabe

Unit 1: Law and Terrorism
Issue: Should U.S. Citizens Who Are Declared to Be "Enemy Combatants" Be
Able to Contest Their Detention before a Judge?
Yes: Sandra Day O'Connor, from "Majority Opinion, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,"
United States Supreme Court (2004) No: Clarence Thomas, from "Minority
Opinion, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld," United States Supreme Court (2004)
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor finds that the Authorization for
Use of Military Force passed by Congress does not authorize the indefinite
detainment of a person found to be an "enemy combatant." Justice Clarence
Thomas believes that the detention of an "enemy combatant" is permitted
under the federal government's war powers.
Issue: Does the President Possess Constitutional Authority to Order
Wiretaps on U.S. Citizens?
Yes: U.S. Department of Justice, from "Legal Authorities Supporting the
Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President,"
United States Department of Justice (2006) No: Letter to Congress, from
"Letter to Congress from 14 Law Professors and Former Government Attorneys
to Congressional Leaders," United States Congress (2006)
The Department of Justice argues that the Constitution gives the President
the right to engage in electronic surveillance, with or without
congressional approval or judicial oversight. It further claims that the
National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping program ordered by President
Bush does not violate federal law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA), because such surveillance falls under the auspices
of the military response to the 9/11 attacks, which was authorized by
Congress. Several lawyers with expertise in constitutional law or
experience in the federal government argue that the NSA wiretapping program
violates FISA and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They
further argue that the President does not have any inherent authority
either to engage in warrantless wiretapping or to violate federal law that
limits such surveillance.
Unit 2: Law and the Individual
Issue: Is It Unconstitutional for a State to Require Physicians Who Perform
Abortions to Have Admitting Privileges at a Nearby Hospital and for
Abortion Clinics to Have Facilities Comparable to an Ambulatory Surgical
Center?
Yes: Stephen Breyer, from "Majority Opinion, Whole Woman's Health v.
Hellerstedt," United States Supreme Court (2016) No: Clarence Thomas, from
"Dissenting Opinion, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt," United States
Supreme Court (2016)
Justice Breyer argues that two provisions in a Texas law-requiring
physicians who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby
hospital and requiring abortion clinics in the state to have facilities
comparable to an ambulatory surgical center-place a substantial obstacle in
the path of women seeking an abortion, constitute an "undue burden" on
abortion access, and therefore violate the Constitution. Justice Thomas
finds that there is no "undue burden."
Issue: Are Violent Video Games Protected by the First Amendment?
Yes: Antonin Scalia, from "Majority Opinion, Brown v. Entertainment
Merchants Association," United States Supreme Court (2011) No: Stephen
Breyer, from "Dissenting Opinion, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants
Association," United States Supreme Court (2011)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues that legislation creating a
whole new category of speech that is banned only for children violates the
First Amendment. Justice Stephen Breyer believes that the California law
restricting the purchase of video games by minors is clear and
constitutional.
Issue: Can States Ban Physician Aid-in-Dying for Terminally Ill Patients?
Yes: William H. Rehnquist, from "Majority Opinion, Washington v.
Glucksberg," United States Supreme Court (1997) No: Stephen Reinhardt, from
"Majority Opinion, Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington," United
States Supreme Court (1996)
Former Supreme Court Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing one of six
opinions of a unanimous Court in Washington v. Glucksberg, rules that
although patients have the right to refuse life-sustaining medical
treatment, "physician-assisted suicide" is not constitutionally protected,
and states may ban that practice. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, writing the
majority opinion for the Ninth Circuit case that became Washington v.
Glucksberg when it reached the U.S. Supreme Court, argues that
criminalizing physician assistance in hastening the death of competent,
terminally ill patients who request life-ending prescriptions violates the
Due Process Clause of the Constitution.
Issue: Does the Sharing of Music Files Through the Internet Violate
Copyright Laws?
Yes: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from "Concurring Opinion, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer
Studios Inc., et al., v. Grokster, Ltd., et al.," United States Supreme
Court (2005) No: Stephen Breyer, from "Concurring Opinion,
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Grokster, Ltd., et
al.," United States Supreme Court (2005)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes that copyright laws are violated by a
company when its software is used primarily for illegal file sharing, and
lawful uses in the future are unlikely. Justice Stephen Breyer does not
want copyright laws to hinder technological innovation and is more willing
to take into account the potential use of the software for lawful file
sharing.
Issue: Is the Eighth Amendment Protection Violated If Prisoners Are
Deprived of Basic Sustenance?
Yes: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Brown v. Plata," United
States Supreme Court (2011) No: Antonin Scalia, from "Dissenting Opinion,
Brown v. Plata," United States Supreme Court (2011)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy rules that if a prison deprives
prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, the courts
have a responsibility to remedy the resulting violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia believes that a ruling that may result in
the release of 40,000 prisoners is unwarranted and unprecedented.
Unit 3: Law and the State
Issue: Does the Constitution's Commerce Clause Allow Congress to Require
Uninsured Individuals to Buy Health Insurance?
Yes: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from "Majority Opinion, National Federation of
Independent Businesses v. Sebelius," United States Supreme Court (2012) No:
John G. Roberts, Jr., from "Dissenting Opinion, National Federation of
Independent Businesses v. Sebelius," United States Supreme Court (2012)
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argues that, under existing Supreme Court
interpretations of the Constitution's Commerce Clause, Congress has the
constitutional authority to require uninsured Americans to buy health
insurance or pay a penalty. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., argues that
a federal mandate to buy a service or product exceeds Congress's power
under the Commerce Clause.
Issue: Is It Constitutional to Open a Town Meeting with a Prayer?
Yes: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Town of Greece, New York v.
Susan Galloway," United States Supreme Court (2014) No: Elena Kagan, et
al., from "Dissenting Opinion, Town of Greece, New York v. Susan Galloway,"
United States Supreme Court (2014)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the Majority, affirms
the right of local government bodies to hold a prayer prior to conducting
official business maintaining that the history of the United States is
consistent with such a practice, and thus the Establishment Clause is not
implicated. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting from the Court's
opinion, argues that prayer prior to local town meetings is a violation of
the Establishment Clause of the Constitution and is materially different
from prayer held in other governmental forums, which had been previously
upheld by the Court.
Issue: Is a Strip Search of Middle School Students That Is Aimed at Finding
Drugs Prohibited Under the Fourth Amendment?
Yes: David Souter, from "Majority Opinion, Safford Unified School District,
et al., v. April Redding," United States Supreme Court (2009) No: Clarence
Thomas, from "Dissenting Opinion, Safford Unified School District, et al.,
v. April Redding," United States Supreme Court (2009)
Supreme Court Justice David Souter holds that a search in school requires a
reasonable belief that evidence of wrongdoing will be found and that the
search is not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the
student. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the Fourth
Amendment is not violated when there is reasonable suspicion that the
student is in possession of drugs banned by school policy and the search is
in an area where small pills could be concealed.
Issue: Is a Dog Sniffing for Drugs Outside a Home a Search Prohibited by
the Fourth Amendment?
Yes: Antonin Scalia, from "Majority Opinion, Florida v. Jardines," United
States Supreme Court (2013) No: Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., from "Dissenting
Opinion, Florida v. Jardines," United States Supreme Court (2013)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia finds that it is a search and a
violation of the Fourth Amendment when police obtain evidence by allowing a
trained dog to physically enter and occupy an area outside a home in which
permission has not been obtained from the home owner. Supreme Court Justice
Samuel Alito disagrees that there was a trespass here or that the dog sniff
could be considered an invasion of any reasonable expectation of privacy
given that one can expect that odors will float outside of a house.
Issue: Does the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" Clause of the Eighth
Amendment Bar the Imposition of the Death Penalty on Juveniles?
Yes: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Donald P. Roper,
Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Petitioner v. Christopher
Simmons," United States Supreme Court (2005) No: Antonin Scalia, from
"Minority Opinion, Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional
Center, Petitioner v. Christopher Simmons," United States Supreme Court
(2005)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy holds that the Constitution prohibits
the execution of a person who was under the age of 18 at the time of the
offense. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia believes that the
Constitution does not preclude the execution of a juvenile.
Issue: Does the Definition of "Sex" in Title IX Include Gender Identity and
Allow Transgender Students to Use the Restrooms That Align with Their
Gender Identities and Not Their Biological Sex?
Yes: Henry Franklin Floyd, from "Majority Opinion, G.G. v. Gloucester
County School Board," United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
(2016) No: Counsel for Amici Curiae, from "Amicus Brief of Christian
Educators Association International, Gloucester County School Board v.
G.G.," United States Supreme Court (2017)
Circuit Judge Henry Franklin Floyd held that the term "sex" was ambiguous
and that it must include gender identity and not just biological sex. The
Christian Educators Association International argues that the term "sex" is
unambiguous, and subject to one interpretation, that of biological sex.
Issue: Does a Facebook Poster Need More Than "General Intent" for a Post to
Be Considered a "True Threat" Under Criminal Law?
Yes: John G. Roberts, Jr., from "Majority Opinion, Elonis v. United
States," United States Supreme Court (2015) No: Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.,
from "Dissenting Opinion, Elonis v. United States," United States Supreme
Court (2015)
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts holds that more than a "general
intent," standard is required to hold a Facebook poster criminally liable
for the contents of the post. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito argues
that the majority is unclear as to the state of mind necessary for someone
posting a threat on Facebook to be criminally liable for a "true threat."
Unit 4: Law and the Community
Issue: Is There a Constitutional Right to Possess a Firearm for Private
Use?
Yes: Antonin Scalia, from "Majority Opinion, District of Columbia, et al.,
v. Heller," United States Supreme Court (2008) No: John Paul Stevens, from
"Dissenting Opinion, District of Columbia, et al., v. Heller," United
States Supreme Court (2008)
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argues that the Second Amendment
protects the right of a private citizen to own a handgun for self-defense.
Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens argues that a previous case, United
States v. Miller, held that the Second Amendment did not protect the right
of a private citizen to own a handgun for self-defense.
Issue: Are Blanket Prohibitions on Cross Burnings Unconstitutional?
Yes: Sandra Day O'Connor, from "Plurality Opinion, Virginia v. Black,"
United States Supreme Court (2003) No: Clarence Thomas, from "Dissenting
Opinion, Virginia v. Black," United States Supreme Court (2003)
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor argues that part of a Virginia
statute proscribing cross burning with the intent to intimidate is
constitutional because it is content discrimination based on the very
reasons that make it constitutional; however, part of the statute is
unconstitutional insofar as it requires an inference of intent to
intimidate solely based on the action of cross burning itself, which is
symbolic speech. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas disagrees with part
of the statute being held unconstitutional, arguing that the history and
nature of cross burning in the United States inextricably links the act to
threatening and menacing violence and that the intent to intimidate can
therefore be inferred solely from the act of cross burning itself.
Issue: Does the Fourth Amendment Prohibit the Police from Collecting a DNA
Sample from a Person Arrested, but Not Yet Convicted on Felony Charges?
Yes: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Maryland v. King," United
States Supreme Court (2013) No: Antonin Scalia, from "Dissenting Opinion,
Maryland v. King," United States Supreme Court (2013)
Justice Anthony Kennedy rules that using a cheek swab to collect a person's
DNA during post-arrest processing is a reasonable search under the Fourth
Amendment because it is predominantly used to confirm the identity of the
arrestee. Justice Antonin Scalia argues that DNA collection at the time of
arrest is an unreasonable search because the arrestee's DNA profile is
predominantly used to investigate unrelated crimes.
Issue: Is Same-sex Marriage Protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution?
Yes: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges," United
States Supreme Court (2015) No: John G. Roberts, Jr, from "Dissenting
Opinion, Obergefell v. Hodges," United States Supreme Court (2015)
Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy holds that marriage is a fundamental
right, and bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional under the Due
Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Supreme
Court Chief Justice John Roberts argues that it is no place for the Court,
as unelected lawyers, to make the determination of what defines "marriage,"
as that is the job of the legislature and not the judiciary.
Issue: Are Race-conscious Public University Admissions Policies Permitted
Under the Fourteenth Amendment?
Yes: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Fisher v. University of Texas
at Austin II," United States Supreme Court (2016) No: Samuel Anthony Alito,
Jr., from "Dissenting Opinion, Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin II,"
United States Supreme Court (2016)
Justice Anthony Kennedy holds that the race-conscious admissions program in
use at the University of Texas does not violate the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Samuel Alito argues that the
university failed to effectively demonstrate that its admission policy
needs a racial element and that the one it employs does, in fact, foster
diversity.
Issue: Is It Unconstitutional for States to Imprison Undocumented
Immigrants?
Yes: Anthony Kennedy, from "Opinion of the Court, Arizona v. United
States," United States Supreme Court (2012) No: Antonin Scalia, from
"Dissenting Opinion, Arizona v. United States," United States Supreme Court
(2012)
Justice Anthony Kennedy argues that a recent state law making it a crime to
be an undocumented immigrant in Arizona impinges on the U.S. federal
government's authority to regulate immigration. Justice Antonin Scalia
argues that it is not unconstitutional for a state to supplement U.S.
federal immigration law with its own, harsher penalties for illegal
immigration.