American Politics Today - Essentials (3rd Ed)

(vip2019) #1

A34 ENDNOTES



  1. Charles A. Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitu-
    tion of the United States (New York: Macmillan, 1913).

  2. Forrest McDonald, We the People: The Economic Origins of
    the Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958);
    Robert E. Brown, Charles Beard and the Constitution (New
    York: Norton, 1956).

  3. David Brian Robertson, The Constitution and America’s Des-
    tiny (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p. 4.

  4. Many delegates probably assumed that the electors would
    reflect the wishes of the voters in their states, but there is
    no clear indication of this in Madison’s notes. (Hamilton
    makes this argument in the Federalist Papers.) Until the
    1820s many electors were directly chosen by state legisla-
    tures rather than by the people. In the first presidential elec-
    tion George Washington won the unanimous support of the
    electors, but in only five states were the electors chosen by
    the people.

  5. The actual language of the section avoids the term slavery.
    Instead, it says, “The Migration or Importation of such Per-
    sons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to
    admit, shall not be prohibited by Congress prior to the Year
    one thousand eight hundred and eight.” The ban on the impor-
    tation of slaves was implemented on the earliest possible date,
    January 1, 1808.

  6. This ban prompted the White House to seek covert channels
    through which to support the Contras, which led to the ill-
    conceived secret arms deal with Iran (a nation that was under
    a complete U.S. trade embargo at the time) in which the money
    from the arms sales was funneled to the Contras.

  7. Cass R. Sunstein, “Making Amends,” The New Republic,
    March 3, 1997, p. 42.

  8. Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972).

  9. The case concerning minors was Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S.
    551 (2005), and the case concerning the mentally retarded was
    Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304 (2002).


You Decide


a. Douglas Linder, “What in the Constitution Cannot Be
Amended?” Arizona Law Review 23 (1981): 717–33.
b. Kathleen M. Sullivan, “What’s Wrong with Constitutional
Amendments?” in New Federalist Papers, ed. Alan Brinkley,
Nelson W. Polsby, and Kathleen M. Sullivan (New York: Nor-
ton, 1997), p. 63.
c. Jamin B. Raskin, “A Right to Vote,” The American Prospect,
August 27, 2001, pp. 10–12.


CHAPTER 3



  1. The full title of the law is the Patient Protection and Aff ord-
    able Care Act (PPACA).

  2. State of Florida, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services, et al., Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United
    States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, September 27,
    2011, http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_092811_Petition.
    pdf (accessed 10/19/12).
    3. State Health Facts.org, Health Care and Coverage, http://www.
    statehealthfacts.org/comparecat.jsp?cat=3 (accessed 11/12/11).
    4. “Obama’s Remarks at the Health Care Bill Signing,” New York
    Times, March 23, 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/us/
    politics/24health-text.html?pagewanted=3 (accessed 11/10/11).
    5. See http://www.cisstat.com/eng/cis.htm for more information on
    the Commonwealth of Independent States.
    6. Pam Belluck, “Massachusetts Gay Marriage to Remain Legal,”
    New York Times, June 14, 2007, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/
    15/us/15gay.html (accessed 10/18/07). The state supreme
    court decision that required the state legislature to recog-
    nize gay marriage was Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, 798
    N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003).
    7. Nancy Wilson and Paula Schoenwether v. Richard Lake and
    John Ashcroft (2005) No. 8:04-cv-1680-T-30TBM.
    8. “The Supreme Court; Excerpts from Court’s Welfare Rul-
    ing and Rehnquist’s Dissent,” New York Times, May 18, 1999,
    p. A20.
    9. John W. Wright, ed., New York Times 2000 Almanac (New
    York: Penguin Reference, 1999), p. 165. Estimates from vari-
    ous online sources are quite a bit higher, averaging about
    620,000 deaths.
    10. Mayor of City of New York v. Miln, 36 U.S. (11 Pet.) 102 (1837).
    11. Cooley v. Board of Wardens of the Port of Philadelphia, 53 U.S.
    229 (1851).
    12. Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). See Ronald M. Labbe
    and Jonathan Lurie, The Slaughterhouse Cases: Regulation,
    Reconstruction, and the Fourteenth Amendment (Lawrence:
    University Press of Kansas, 2003).
    13. Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883).
    14. Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918).
    15. Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905).
    16. Four key cases are West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish (1937),
    Wright v. Vinton Branch (1937), Virginia Railway Company v.
    System Federation (1937), and National Labor Relations Board v.
    Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation (1937).
    17. Martin Grodzins, The American System (New York: Rand
    McNally, 1966).
    18. John Shannon, “Middle Class Votes Bring a New Balance to
    Federalism,” February 1, 1997, policy paper 10 from the Urban
    Institute series The Future of the Public Sector, http://www.urban
    .org/url.cfm?ID=307051 (accessed 1/3/08).
    19. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954); Swann v.
    Charlotte- Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971).
    20. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966); Mapp v. Ohio, 367
    U.S. 643 (1961).
    21. Paul Posner, “The Politics of Coercive Federalism in the Bush
    Era,” Publius 37, no. 3 (May 2007): 390–412.
    22. Barry Rabe, “Environmental Policy and the Bush Era: The
    Collision between the Administrative Presidency and State
    Experimentation,” Publius 37, no. 3 (May 2007): 413–31.
    23. Quoted in Kirk Johnson, “States’ Rights Is Rallying Cry for
    Lawmakers,” New York Times, March 17, 2010, p. A1. The
    Supreme Court endorsed this reassertion of state power in an
    important case concerning immigration policy. In Chamber

Free download pdf