Wittes offers a subtle and deeply considered portrait of a decent man who fundamentally misconstrued his function under the independent counsel law. Starr took his task to be ferreting out and reporting the truth about official misconduct, a well-intentioned but nevertheless misguided distortion of the law, Wittes argues. At key moments throughout Starr's probe -- from the decision to reinvestigate the death of Vincent Foster, Jr., to the repeated prosecutions of Susan McDougal and Webster Hubbell to the failure to secure Monica Lewinsky's testimony quickly -- the prosecutor avoided the most sensible prosecutorial course, fearing that it would compromise the larger search for truth. This approach not only delayed investigations enormously, but it gave Starr the appearance of partisan zealotry and an almost maniacal determination to prosecute the president. With insight and originality, Wittes provides in this account of Starr's term a fascinating reinterpretation of the man, his performance, and the controversial events thatsurrounded the impeachment of President Clinton.
The authors span a considerable swath of the political spectrum, but they all believe that Congress has a significant role to play in shaping the contours of America's confrontation with terrorism. Their essays are organized around the major tools that the United States has deployed against al Qaeda as well as the legal problems that have arisen as a result.
• Mark Gitenstein compares U.S. and foreign legal standards for detention, interrogation, and surveillance. • Matthew Waxman studies possible strategic purposes for detaining people without charging them, while Jack Goldsmith imagines a system of judicially reviewed law-of-war detention.
• Robert Chesney suggests ways to refine U.S. criminal law into a more powerful instrument against terrorism. • Robert Litt and Wells C. Bennett suggest the creation of a specialized bar of defense lawyers for trying accused terrorists in criminal courts.
• David Martin explores the relationship between immigration law and counterterrorism.
• David Kris lays out his proposals for modernizing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
• Justin Florence and Matthew Gerke outline possible reforms of civil justice procedures in national security litigation.
• Benjamin Wittes and Stuart Taylor Jr. investigate ways to improve interrogation laws while clarifying the definition and limits of torture.
• Kenneth Anderson argues for the protection of targeted killing as a counterterrorism tool.
How should Congress authorize, regulate, and limit counterterrorism tools, and under what circumstances should it permit and encourage their use? The authors of this book share a commitment to pushing a reluctant Congress to play a more active role than it has to date in writing the rules of the road.
Sit back and enjoy a collection of verbatim exchanges from the halls of justice, where defendants and plaintiffs, lawyers and witnesses, juries and judges, collide to produce memorably insane comedy.
A: You mumbled on the first part of that and I couldn't understand what you were saying. Could you repeat the question?
Q: I mumbled, did I? Well, we'll just ask the court reporter to read back what I said. She didn't indicate any problem understanding what I said, so obviously she understood every word. We'll just have her read my question back and find out if there was any mumbling going on. Madam reporter, would you be so kind?
Court Reporter: Mumble, mumble, mumble, mumble, mumble.
-domestic economic growth
-America's role in the world
-the budget deficit
-Afghanistan and Pakistan
-reforming government institutions
-the Middle East
This is truly Brookings at its best—independent expert analysis, presented in an accessible manner and offering viable solutions.
Constitution 3.0 explores some of the most urgent constitutional questions of the near future. Will privacy become obsolete, for example, in a world where ubiquitous surveillance is becoming the norm? Imagine that Facebook and Google post live feeds from public and private surveillance cameras, allowing 24/7 tracking of any citizen in the world. How can we protect free speech now that Facebook and Google have more power than any king, president, or Supreme Court justice to decide who can speak and who can be heard? How will advanced brain-scan technology affect the constitutional right against self-incrimination? And on a more elemental level, should people have the right to manipulate their genes and design their own babies? Should we be allowed to patent new forms of life that seem virtually human? The constitutional challenges posed by technological progress are wide-ranging, with potential impacts on nearly every aspect of life in America and around the world.
The authors include Jamie Boyle, Duke Law School; Eric Cohen and Robert George, Princeton University; Jack Goldsmith, Harvard Law School; Orin Kerr, George Washington University Law School; Lawrence Lessig, Harvard Law School; Stephen Morse, University of Pennsylvania Law School; John Robertson, University of Texas Law School; Christopher Slobogin, Vanderbilt Law School; O. Carter Snead, Notre Dame Law School; Jeffrey Rosen, George Washington University Law School; Benjamin Wittes, Brookings Institution; Tim Wu, Columbia Law School; and Jonathan Zittrain, Harvard Law School.
Constitutional scholars have long debated whether the American political system, which was so influenced by the thinking of James Madison, has in fact grown outmoded. But if Madison himself could peer at the present, what would he think of the state of key political institutions that he helped originate and the government policies that they produce? In What Would Madison Do?, ten prominent scholars explore the contemporary performance of Madison's constitutional legacy and how much would have surprised him.
1. Introduction: Perspectives on Madison's Legacy for Contemporary American Politics, Pietro S. Nivola and Benjamin Wittes
2. Mr. Madison's Communion Suit: Implementation-Group Liberalism and the Case for Constitutional Reform, John J. DiIulio Jr.
3. Constitutional Surprises: What James Madison Got Wrong, William A. Galston
4. Overcoming the Great Recession: How Madison's "Horse and Buggy" Managed, Pietro S. Nivola
5. Gridlock and the Madisonian Constitution, R. Shep Melnick
From the moment of his inauguration, Trump has challenged our deepest expectations of the presidency. But what are those expectations, where did they come from, and how great is the damage? As editors of the “invaluable” (The New York Times) Lawfare website, Susan Hennessey and Benjamin Wittes have attracted a large audience to their hard-hitting and highly informed commentary on the controversies surrounding the Trump administration. In this book, they situate Trump-era scandals and outrages in the deeper context of the presidency itself. How should we understand the oath of office when it is taken by a man who may not know what it means to preserve, protect, and defend something other than himself? What aspects of Trump are radically different from past presidents and what aspects have historical antecedents? When has he simply built on his predecessors’ misdeeds, and when has he invented categories of misrule entirely his own? By setting Trump in the light of history, Hennessey and Wittes provide a crucial and durable account of a presidency like no other.
No right seems more fundamental to American public life than freedom of speech. Yet well into the twentieth century, that freedom was still an unfulfilled promise, with Americans regularly imprisoned merely for speaking out against government policies. Indeed, free speech as we know it comes less from the First Constitutional Amendment than from a most unexpected source: Supreme Court justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. A lifelong skeptic, he disdained all individual rights, including the right to express one's political views. But in 1919, it was Holmes who wrote a dissenting opinion that would become the canonical affirmation of free speech in the United States.
Why did Holmes change his mind? That question has puzzled historians for almost a century. Now, with the aid of newly discovered letters and confidential memos, law professor Thomas Healy reconstructs in vivid detail Holmes's journey from free-speech opponent to First Amendment hero. It is the story of a remarkable behind-the-scenes campaign by a group of progressives to bring a legal icon around to their way of thinking—and a deeply touching human narrative of an old man saved from loneliness and despair by a few unlikely young friends.
Beautifully written and exhaustively researched, The Great Dissent is intellectual history at its best, revealing how free debate can alter the life of a man and the legal landscape of an entire nation.
A Kirkus Reviews Best Nonfiction Book of 2013
From Citizens United to its momentous rulings regarding Obamacare and gay marriage, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has profoundly affected American life. Yet the court remains a mysterious institution, and the motivations of the nine men and women who serve for life are often obscure. Now, in Uncertain Justice, Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz show the surprising extent to which the Roberts Court is revising the meaning of our Constitution.
This essential book arrives at a make-or-break moment for the nation and the court. Political gridlock, cultural change, and technological progress mean that the court's decisions on key topics—including free speech, privacy, voting rights, and presidential power—could be uniquely durable. Acutely aware of their opportunity, the justices are rewriting critical aspects of constitutional law and redrawing the ground rules of American government. Tribe—one of the country's leading constitutional lawyers—and Matz dig deeply into the court's recent rulings, stepping beyond tired debates over judicial "activism" to draw out hidden meanings and silent battles. The undercurrents they reveal suggest a strikingly different vision for the future of our country, one that is sure to be hotly debated.
Filled with original insights and compelling human stories, Uncertain Justice illuminates the most colorful story of all—how the Supreme Court and the Constitution frame the way we live.
Have you ever had the chance to decide the fate of another person? What would you do? In the real-life cases presented to you in this book, you will be the judge and the jury - making the ultimate decision between right and wrong.Can you convict an abused woman who kills her husband because she is afraid he will beat her again? What about a man who helps his best friend commit suicide to avoid a painful death? Would you allow a feeding tube to be removed from a 92-year-old coma victim so she can die peacefully?
Put yourself in the place of the judge or one of the jurors as you read the details of each case. Many of these trials raise questions that go beyond the law to the heart of one's own moral code.
At the end of each case, after rendering your own verdict, you can read on to find out what really happened.
THE CASE IS NOW IN YOUR HANDS.
Unlike longer, more expensive competing works, The Dynamics of Law presents its subject with clarity and precision, and minimal use of legal terms. It offers clear explanations of how to brief a case and how statutes and regulations are codified in the United States. Study problems and review questions in each chapter, drawn from legal literature as well as general interest articles and books, are designed to stimulate classroom discussion.
You will learn about the Small Claims Court system and how to go about filing your complaint. You will also learn about how to prepare for your case, what to and what not to do in court and how to collect compensation from the individual or company you sue.
Table of ContentsWhat Are You Going To Learn?Your Main ObjectivesWhat If You Don’t Win in Small Claims Court?Research, Execute & PrepareWhat is a Small Claims Court?How Much Can You Sue for and When Can You File?Where to File?Some Additional Tips on Where to FileDon’t be Afraid of Making MistakesConsidering the Small Claims CourtTry to Resolve Your Issue on Your Own FirstHow to Resolve Your Issue?Make Google Your Best FriendSpend Time on the Company WebsiteWhy Is It Important to Research the Company Online?Make Your Intentions Clear & File a Complaint LetterThe Statute of LimitationsDo You Have a Case Worthy of Pursuit?Ready to File?Naming Companies & Individuals InvolvedExecution – The Nitty Gritty Grungy WorkWhere to Get Complaint Forms?Additional FormsWhat to Fill In the Plaintiff Section?What to Fill In the Defendant Section?Address the Complaint to Registered AgentsWhat Are You Seeking?Filing Your Complaint Paperwork & Dealing With ClerksWho Serves the Agent?What if the Defendant Ignores Your Efforts?Settling Your CaseDefault JudgmentGetting a Court DateWhat If the Defendant Sues You Back?Preparing For The JudgeAdvanced PreparationArranging Your WitnessesArranging for Court ReportersBefore You Leave the Court after Your First VisitWhat if You Have an Emergency on Your Hearing Date?Your Behavior in CourtWhat to Expect When Called to Present Your CaseWhat to Do When the Defendant Presents their Side?Concluding the Court HearingWhen Do You Find Out About the Decision?What If You Don’t Agree With the Court’s Decision?Appealing the Court’s DecisionWhat You Should Know About Appealing?Compensation OptionsConclusionNotes
In Vaccine Court, Anna Kirkland draws on the trials of the vaccine court to explore how legal institutions resolve complex scientific questions. What are vaccine injuries, and how do we come to recognize them? What does it mean to transform these questions into a legal problem and funnel them through a special national vaccine court, as we do in the U.S.? What does justice require for vaccine injury claims, and how can we deliver it? These are highly contested questions, and the terms in which they have been debated over the last forty years are highly revealing of deeper fissures in our society over motherhood, community, health, harm, and trust in authority. While many scholars argue that it’s foolish to let judges and lawyers decide medical claims about vaccines, Kirkland argues that our political and legal response to vaccine injury claims shows how well legal institutions can handle specialized scientific matters. Vaccine Court is an accessible and thorough account of what the vaccine court is, why we have it, and what it does.
First outlining the sources and instruments — and limitations — of judicial power, the author then shows how policy-oriented justices might take advantage of their power positions to maximize their impact on the formation and execution of public policy. In this book Walter F. Murphy attempts to understand how, under the limitations which the American legal and political systems impose, Supreme Court justices can legitimately act to further their policy objectives. Murphy also considers ethical issues raised by the model of judicial decision-making he describes. Throughout, systematic analysis is supported by prodigious research and fascinating real-world examples over the years and in very different judicial administrations.
The new ebook edition of this foundational work features quality digital formatting, active Contents, linked footnotes and endnotes, and fully linked tables of cases and subject-matter index. Also available in 2016 hardcover and paperback editions from Quid Pro Books.