You Decide! Current Debates in American Politics, 2006 Edition

This exciting new debate-style reader edited by John Rourke examines provocative issues in American politics today. 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 critically about our political system, "You Decide!"

Table of Contents:

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. CONSTITUTON

GUNS, SAFETY, AND THE CONSTITUTION’S MEANING:

INDIVDUAL RIGHT OR SUBJECT TO REGULATION

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 Profess 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

NEW2.  FEDERALISM

FEDERAL REGULATION OF MEDICAL MARIUANA:

APPROPRIATE CONSITUTIONAL POWER OR USURPATION OF STATE AUTHORITY?

Federal Regulation of  Medical Marijuana:  Appropriate Constitutional Power

Advocate:               John Paul Stevens, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court        

Source: Opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, June 6, 2005

Federal Regulation of  Medical Marijuana: Usurpation of State Authority

Advocate:               Sandra Day O’Conner, Associate Justice, U.S. Supreme Court  

Source:      Opinion in Gonzales v. Raich, June 6, 2005

Also suitable for chapters on Civil Rights, Courts. Constitution

NEW 3.  CIVIL RIGHTS

EVALUATING THE “RIGHT TO AN ABORTION DECISION IN ROE V. WADE:

POSITIIVE IMPACT OR NEGATIVE IMPACT?

Evaluating the “Right to an Abortion” Decision in Roe V. Wade:  Positive Impact

Advocate: R. Alta Charo, Professor of Law and Bioethics; Associate Dean for Rresearch and Faculty Development, University of Wisconsin Law School

Source:    Testimony  during hearings on “The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton,” U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary June 23, 2005

Evaluating the “Right to an Abortion” Decision in Roe V. Wade:  Negative Impact

Advocate:               Teresa Collett, Professor of Law, University of St. Thomas School of Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Source:        Testimony  during hearings on “The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton,” U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary June 23, 2005

  NEW  4.  CIVIL LIBERTIES

CURRENT SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE DOCTRINE:

REASONABLE BALANCE OR SUPPRESSING PUBLIC DISPLAYS OF FAITH

Current Separation of Church and State Doctrine: Reasonable Balance

Advocate: Melissa Rogers, Professor, Wake Forest University Divinity School

Source:      Testimony during hearings on “Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square,” U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryJune 8, 2004

Current Separation of Church and State Doctrine: Suppressing Public Displays of Faith

Advocate: Vincent Phillip Munoz, Professor of Political Science, North Carolina State University and Civitas Fellow of Religion and Public Life, American Enterprise Institute

Source:   Testimony during hearings on “Beyond the Pledge of Allegiance: Hostility to Religious Expression in the Public Square,” U.S. Senate Committee on the JudiciaryJune 8, 2004

Also suitable for chapters on Courts, Political Culture (role of religion in politics)

5.  AMERICAN PEOPLE/POLITICAL CULTURE

IMMIGRATON AS A THREAT TO “WHO WE ARE”:

VALID CONCERN OR UNFOUNDED FEAR?

Immigraton as a Threat to “Who We Are”:  Valid Concern

Advocate:        John O’Sulllivan, Editor-in-chief of the National Interest

Source:           “Who We Are,” The American Conservative, July 19, 2004

Immigraton as a Threat to “Who We Are”:  Unfounded Fear?

Advocate:               Jim Sleeper, Lecturer in Political Science at 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

NEW6.  PUBLIC OPINION/PARTICIPATION

VOLUNTEER BORDER PATROL GROUPS:

LAUDABLE PATRIOTS OR DANGEROUS VIGILANTES?

Volunteer Border Patrol Groups: Laudable Patriots

Advocate: Chris Simcox, President of Minuteman Civil Defense Corps,

Source:     Testimony during hearings on “Securing Our Borders: What We Have Learned From Government Initiatives and Citizen Patrols,” U.S. House of Representatives House Committee on Government Reform, May 12, 2005

Advocate:               Asheesh Siddique, Editor, The Princeton Progressive Review, Princeton University

Source:  “The New Nativism” Campus Progress News, Spring 2005

New7.  MEDIA

SHIELDING OF JOURNALISTS’ SOURCES FROM SUBPEONA:

NECESSARY FOR DEMOCRACY OR UNNECESSARY PROTECTION

Shielding Journalists’ Sources from Subpeona: Necessary for Democracy

Advocate: Norman Pearlstine, Editor-in-Chief, Time Inc.

Source:    Testimony during hearings on “Reporters' Shield Legislation: Issues and Implications,” U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 20, 2005

Shielding Journalists’ Sources from Subpeona:  Unnecessary Protection

Advocate: James B. Comey, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department Of Justice

Source:    Testimony during hearings on “Reporters' Shield Legislation: Issues and Implications,” U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, July 20, 2005

8.  INTEREST GROUPS

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

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

NEW9.  POLITICAL PARTIES

HILARY CLINTON AND THE 2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION:

THE DEMOCRATS’ BEST BET OR A PROBLEMATIC CANDIDATE

Hilary Clinton and The 2008 Presidential Election: The Democrats’ Best Bet

Advocate: Carl Cannon, White House correspondent for the National Journal

Source:  “She Can Win the White House,” WashingtonMonthly. July/August 2005

Hilary Clinton and The 2008 Presidential Election: A Problematic Candidate

Advocate:               Amy Sullivan, editor, Washington Monthly

Source: “Not So Fast,” WashingtonMonthly, July/August 2005

10.  VOTING/CAMPAIGNS/ELECTIONS

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

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

 11.  CONGRESS

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," U.S. House of Representatives,  Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, January 22, 1997

Advocate:               John R. Hibbing, Professor of Political Science, University of Nebraska

Source:        Testimony during hearings on "Limiting Terms of Office for Members of the U.S. Senate and U.S. House of Representatives," U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, January 22, 1997

Also suitable for chapters on Elections

12.  PRESIDENCY

QUALIFIED TO BE PRESIDENT:

 NATURAL-BORN CITIZENS ONLY OR ALL CITIZENS?

Advocate:  Matthew Spalding Director, Center of American Studies , The Heritage Foundation

Source:        Testimony during hearings on “Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans,” before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, October 5, 2004

NewQualified to be President: All Citizens

Advocate:     John Yinger, Professor of Economics and Public Administration, The Maxwell School, Syracuse University

Source:        Testimony during hearings on “Maximizing Voter Choice: Opening the Presidency to Naturalized Americans,” before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee,  October 5, 2004

13.  BUREAUCRACY

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 especially for this volume, October 2003.

 New  14.  JUDICIARY

FILIBUSTERING  FEDERAL COURT NOMINEES:

FRUSTRATING THE MAJORITY OR PROTECTING THE MINORITY?

Filibustering Federal Court Nominees: Frustrating The Majority

Advocate: Orrin Hatch, U.S. Senator (R-UT)

Source:    Congressional Record, May 10, 2005

Filibustering Federal Court Nominees: Protecting The Minority?

                        Advocate:  Harry Byrd, U.S. Senator (D-WV)

                        Source:     Congressional Record, March 1, 2005

NEW  15.  State and Local Government

  USING EMINENT DOMAIN TO TAKE PROPERTY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:

                SERVING THE PUBLIC GOOD OR FAVORING THE WEALTHY?

       Using Eminent Domain To Take Property For Economic Development: Serving the Public Good

       Advocate: Connecticut Conference of Municipalities and 31 other state municipal leagues            

       Source:  Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London (2005)  

       Using Eminent Domain To Take Property For Economic Development: Favoring the Wealthy

       Advocate:  NAACP, AARP, and 4 other civil rights groups

       Source: Amicus Curiae brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in Kelo v. New London (2005)

       Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Courts, Economic Policy

16.  ECONOMIC POLICY

CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRE A BALANCED BUDGET:

FISCAL SANITY OR 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

17. CRIMINAL JUSTICE POLICY

THE DEATH PENALTY:

RACIALLY BIASED OR JUSTICE SERVED?

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

Advocate:   Andrew  G. McBride, former U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General

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

Also suitable for chapters on Civil Rights

18.  EDUCATION POLICY

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION ADMISSIONS:

PROMOTING EQUALITY OR UNFAIR ADVANTAGE?

Promoting Equality

Advocate:               41 College Students and 3 Student Coalitions

Source:                  Amicus Curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bolligner (2003)

Unfair Advantage

Advocate:  21 Law Professors

Source:                  Amicus Curiae brief to the United States Supreme Court in Grutter v. Bolligner (2003)

Also suitable for chapters on Constitution, Civil Rights

New 19.  FOREIGN POLICY

U.S.MILITARY FORCES IN IRAQ:

STAY THE COURSE OR WITHDRAW QUICKLY?

U.S.Military Forces in Iraq:  Stay the Course

Advocate:  George W. Bush, President of the United States

Source:  Address to the nation, Jule 28, 2005

U.S.Military Forces in Iraq:  Stay the Course of Withdraw Quickly?

Advocate:  James P. Sterba, Professor of Philosophy, University of Notre Dame

Source: “Why the U.S. Must Immediately Withdraw from Iraq,” International Journal of Applied Philosophy, Spring, 2005. 

New 20. URBAN POLICY

REBUILDING ORLEANS:

NATIONAL IMPERATIVE OR EMOTIONAL MISTAKE?

Rebuilding New Orleans: National Imperative

Advocate: James R. Stoner, Jr., professor of political science at Louisiana State University

Source: "Saving a Great City: Why America Should Rebuild New Orleans," The Weekly Standard (September 26, 2005)

Rebuilding New Orleans: Emotional Mistake

Advocate: Edward Glaeser, Professor of Economics and Director of the Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston and the Taubman Center for State and Local Government, Harvard University

Source: "Should the Government Rebuild New Orleans, Or Just Give Residents Checks?" The Economists' Voice, September, 2005

Also suitable for chapters on State and Local Government, Economic Policy

EXTENDED TABLE OF CONTENTS: WEB ISSUES

The following topics are available on the Web at:  http://www.ablongman.com/YouDecide/

21.  DECIDING POLICY:

ADOPT DIRECT DEMOCRACY OR REMAIN A REPUBLIC?

Adopt Direct Democracy

Advocate:                 Harlan Hahn, Professor of Political Science, University of Southern California.

Source:          Testimony during hearings, “Voter Initiative Constitutional Amendment,” before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, December 13, 1977

Remain a Republic

Advocate:                 Peter G. Fish, Professor of Political Science, Duke University

Source:          Testimony during hearings, “Voter Initiative Constitutional Amendment,” before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, December 13, 1977

Suitable for chapters on Introduction, Constitution, Political Participation, Policymaking

22.  AMENDING THE CONSTITUION TO BAR GAY MARRIAGE:

NECESSARY AND PROPER OR  UNNECESSARY AND IMPROPER?

New Amending the Constitution to Bar Gay Marriage: Necessary and Proper

Advocate:               Marilyn Musgrave, U.S. Representative (R-CO)           

Source:        Testimony during hearings on the “Federal Marriage Amendment, before the U.S. House of  Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, May 13, 2004

New Amending the Constitution to Bar Gay Marriage: Unnecessary and Improper

Advocate:               Shiela Jackson-Lee, U.S. Represetative (D-TX)

Source:      Congressional Record, September 30, 2004

Suitable for chapters on Constitution, Federalism, Public Opinion, Political Culture

23.   PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION:

ADVANCE OF DEMOCRACY OR DESTABILIZING IDEA?

Advance of Democracy 

Advocate:     Theodore S. Arrington, Professor, Department of Political Science, University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Source:        Testimony during hearings on  the “States' Choice of Voting Systems Act" before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, September 23, 1999

Destabilizing Idea   

Advocate:               Abigail Thernstrom., Senior Fellow at the Manhattan Institute

Source:        Testimony during hearings on “H.R. 1173\States' Choice of Voting Systems Act,” U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, September 23, 1999

24.  ANTI-TERRORIST LEGISLATION:

THREAT TO CIVIL LIBERTIES OR CONSTITUTIONAL SHIELD?

New Threat to Civil Liberties:

Advocate:               Alberto R. Gonzales, U.S.  Attorney General

Source:        Testimony during hearings on, “Oversight of the USA Patriot Act,” U.S. House Of Representatives Committee On The Judiciary April 6, 2005

New Constitutional Shield: 

Advocate: Chip Pitts  Chair of the Board, Amnesty International USA      

Source:      Testimony during hearings on, “Oversight of the USA Patriot Act,” U.S. House of Representatives   Committee On The Judiciary April 6, 2005

Also suitable for chapters on Courts, Political Culture (freedom v. safety), Criminal Justice, National Security

25.  REGULATING THE CAMPAIGN FINANCE ACTIVITY OF NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS:

NECESSARY REFORM OR OPPRESIVE RESTRICTION?

Needed Reform

Advocate:               Donald B. Tobin, Professor, Moritz College of Law, Ohio State University

Source:        “Comments on Proposed Rulemaking Notice 2004-5 and Request to Testify,” e-mail letter to the Federal Elections Commission, April 5, 2004.

Oppressive Restriction

Advocate:     415 civil rights, environmental, civil liberties, women's rights, public health, social welfare, religious, consumer, senior and social service organizations

Source:        “Comments and Request to Testify Concerning Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Political Committee Status, e-mail letter to the Federal Elections Commission, April 5, 2004.

26. 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