CiNii 図書 - Taking sides : clashing views on legal issues

The Taking Sides Collection on McGraw-Hill Create (TM) includes current controversial issues in a debate-style format 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 issues 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?, and Additional Resources and Internet References. Go to McGraw-Hill Create (TM) at www.mcgrawhillcreate.com, click on the "Collections" tab, and select The Taking Sides 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, 16/e ExpressBook for an easy, pre-built teaching resource by clicking here. An online Instructor's Resource Guide with testing material is available for each Taking Sides volume. Using Taking Sides in the Classroom is also an excellent instructor resource. Visit the Create Central Online Learning Center at www.mhhe.com/createcentral for more details.

Table of Contents Clashing Views on Legal Issues, Sixteenth Edition UNIT: 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" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2004)NO: Clarence Thomas, from "Minority Opinion, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 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, January 19, 2006)NO: Letter to Congress, from "14 Law Professors and Former Government Attorneys to Congressional Leaders" (January 2, 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: Law and the Individual Issue: Are Violent Video Games Protected by the First Amendment? YES: Antonin Scalia, from "Majority Opinion, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 2011)NO: Stephen Breyer, from "Dissenting Opinion, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 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. Issue: Is It Constitutional to Ban Late-Term Abortions Without Providing for an Exception to Protect the Health of the Mother? YES: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart" (U.S. Supreme Court, April 18, 2007)NO: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from "Dissenting Opinion, Gonzales v. Carhart" (U.S. Supreme Court, April 18, 2007)Justice Anthony Kennedy rules that the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 was constitutional even without a "health exception" for the woman. In dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argues that the law clearly contravenes the Court's holding in prior cases that any regulation limiting a woman's access to abortion, even post-viability, must include a health exception. Issue: Can States Ban Physician Aid-in-Dying for Terminally Ill Patients? YES: William H. Rehnquist, from "Majority Opinion, Washington v. Glucksberg" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 1997)NO: Stephen Reinhardt, from "Majority Opinion, Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington" (U.S. Supreme Court, May 28, 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." (U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 2005)NO: Stephen Breyer, from "Concurring Opinion, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios Inc., et al., Petitioners v. Grokster, Ltd., et al." (U.S. Supreme Court, June 27, 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, Including Adequate Medical Care?YES: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, Brown v. Plata" (U.S. Supreme Court, May 23, 2011)NO: Antonin Scalia, from "Dissenting Opinion, Brown v. Plata" (U.S. Supreme Court, May 23, 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: Law and the State Issue: Should Judges Be Elected Rather Than Appointed? YES: Michael R. Dimino, Sr., from "The Worst Way of Selecting Judges-Except All the Others That Have Been Tried," Northern Kentucky Law Review (Vol. 32, pp. 267-304, 2005)NO: Charles Gardner Geyh, from "Why Judicial Elections Stink," Ohio State Law Journal (Vol. 64, pp. 43-79, 2003)Professor Michael Dimino, Sr., claims that electing judges is no worse than appointing them and that it is appropriate for citizens to have a say in who will be making decisions that affect them. Professor Charles Geyh criticizes the practice of electing judges and argues that it reduces judicial independence and accountability. Issue: Do Religious Groups Have a Right to Use Public School Facilities After Hours? YES: Clarence Thomas, from "Majority Opinion, Good News Club v. Milford Central School" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 11, 2001)NO: David Souter, from "Dissenting Opinion, Good News Club v. Milford Central School" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 11, 2001)Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas affirms the right of religious groups to use school facilities after the school day ends, maintaining that restricting such use is a violation of free speech rights. Supreme Court Justice David Souter, dissenting from the Court's opinion, contends that the use of school facilities by religious groups blurs the line between public classroom instruction and private religious indoctrination and therefore violates the Establishment Clause of the Constitution. 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" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 2009)NO: Clarence Thomas, from "Dissenting Opinion, Safford Unified School District, et al., v. April Redding" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 25, 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 fo r Drugs Outside a Home a Search Prohibited by the Fourth Amendment?YES: Antonin Scalia, from "Majority Opinion, Florida v. Jardines" (U.S. Supreme Court, March 26, 2013)NO: Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., from "Dissenting Opinion, Florida v. Jardines" (U.S. Supreme Court, March 26, 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" (U.S. Supreme Court, March 1, 2005)NO: Antonin Scalia, from "Minority Opinion, Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Petitioner v. Christopher Simmons" (U.S. Supreme Court, March 1, 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. UNIT: 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" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2008)NO: John Paul Stevens, from "Dissenting Opinion, District of Columbia, et al., v. Heller" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 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" (U.S. Supreme Court, April 7, 2003)NO: Clarence Thomas, from "Dissenting Opinion, Virginia v. Black" (U.S. Supreme Court, April 7, 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" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 3, 2013)NO: Antonin Scalia, from "Dissenting Opinion, Maryland v. King" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 3, 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 the Federal Defense of Marriage Act That Defines Marriage as Between One Man and One Woman Unconstitutional?YES: Anthony Kennedy, from "Majority Opinion, United States v. Windsor" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2013)NO: Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr., from "Minority Opinion, United States v. Windsor" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 26, 2013)Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy holds that the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection is violated by defining marriage solely as between one man and one woman and precluding same-sex couples legally married under state law of the same benefits and obligations of married couples under federal law. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito holds that the Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage and that the government has the right to regulate the institution of marriage. Issue: Do Race-Conscious Programs in Public University Admissions Policies Violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Guarantee of Equal Protection Under the Law?YES: Clarence Thomas, from "Dissenting Opinion, Grutter v. Bollinger" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 2003)NO: Sandra Day O'Connor, from "Majority Opinion, Grutter v. Bollinger" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 23, 2003)Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas argues that the University of Michigan Law School's admissions policy discriminates on the basis of race and is therefore in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor holds that the admissions policy of the University of Michigan Law School, which makes race one factor among many in the process of creating a diverse student body, does not violate the Constitution's guarantee of equal protection under the law. Issue: Does the Constitution's Commerce Clause Allow Congress to Require Uninsured Individuals to Buy Health Insurance?YES: Ruth Bader Ginsburg, from "Opinion, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 2012)NO: John G. Roberts, Jr., from "Opinion, National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius" (U.S. Supreme Court, June 28, 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 Unconstitutional for States to Imprison Undocumented Immigrants?YES: Anthony Kennedy, from "Opinion of the Court, Arizona v. United States" (U.S. Supreme Court, 2012)NO: Antonin Scalia, from "Dissenting Opinion, Arizona v. United States" (U.S. 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. 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: Justice 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: Does the First Amendment Protect Unlimited Donations and Spending on Behalf of a Political Candidate?YES: Chief Justice Roberts, from "Opinion of Roberts, C. J., Shaun McCutcheon, et al. v. Federal Election Commission ", United States Supreme Court, (2014)NO: Justice Breyer, et al., from "Breyer, J., Dissenting, Shaun McCutcheon, et al., v. Federal Election Commission", United States Supreme Court " (2014) Chief Justice John Roberts holds that the First Amendment protects unlimited aggregate donations to political candidates and causes from a single source. Limits on campaign contributions are constitutionally permissible o nly if they prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, and aggregate limits do not serve this purpose. Justice Stephen Breyer argues that aggregate limits on campaign contributions are permissible under the First Amendment because those limits serve to prevent political corruption and the appearance of corruption.

「Nielsen BookData」より

Taking sides : clashing views on legal issues

著者

書誌事項

大学図書館所蔵全1件

この図書・雑誌をさがす

内容説明・目次

詳細情報

書き出し