American Politics Today - Essentials (3rd Ed)

(vip2019) #1
ENDNOTES A35

have standing to sue the U.S. government. Supporters of this
decision (and the practice more generally) say that it is an
essential part of the war on terrorism and that the enemy com-
batants who are arrested have no legal rights. Opponents say
that the practice violates international law and our own stan-
dards of decency; furthermore, torture almost never produces
useful information because people will say anything to get the
torture to stop.


  1. Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of
    1787 , rev. ed. (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1937),
    pp. 587–88, 617–18.

  2. The two that were not ratifi ed by the states were a complicated
    amendment on congressional apportionment and a pay raise
    amendment.

  3. There is an intense scholarly debate on whether the authors
    of the Fourteenth Amendment intended for it to apply the Bill
    of Rights to the states. The strongest argument against this
    position is Raoul Berger, The Fourteenth Amendment and the
    Bill of Rights (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989),
    and a good book in support is Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of
    Rights (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998).

  4. The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873). The plaintiff s
    also made a Thirteenth Amendment claim (that the monopoly
    forced them to work in “involuntary servitude”) and a “due
    process” claim, but the Court rejected both of those as well.
    The Court focused on the “privileges and immunities” argu-
    ment and the idea of dual citizenship.

  5. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925).

  6. Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U.S. 92 (1972).

  7. United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968); Ladue v. Gilleo,
    512 U.S. 43 (1994).

  8. Schenk v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), 52.

  9. Alan Dershowitz, Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent
    Age (New York: Little, Brown, 2002).

  10. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).

  11. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U.S. 566 (1974).

  12. Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U.S. 503 (1969).

  13. Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405 (1974).

  14. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989).

  15. United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990).

  16. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976).

  17. Davis v. Federal Election Commission, 128 S. Ct. 2749 (2008).

  18. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S.
    08-205 (2010).

  19. McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003).

  20. Kermit L. Hall, “Free Speech on Public College Campuses:
    Overview,” http://www.fi rstamendmentcenter.org/speech/pubcollege/
    overview.aspx (accessed 2/10/08).

  21. Carolyn J. Palmer, Sophie W. Penney, Donald D. Gehring, and
    Jan A. Neiger, “Hate Speech and Hate Crimes: Campus Con-
    duct Codes and Supreme Court Rulings,” National Association
    of Student Personnel Administrators Journal 34, no. 2 (1997),
    http://publications.naspa.org/naspajournal/vol34/iss2/art4
    (accessed 12/18/07).

  22. City of St. Paul v. RAV, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).


of Commerce v. Whiting, 131 S.Ct. 1968 (2011), the Court held
that federal immigration law did not preempt an Arizona law
that required implementation of federal law in a manner that
may have been more aggressive than Congress intended.


  1. From a review of Michael S. Greve, Real Federalism: Why It
    Matters, How It Could Happen (Washington, DC: American
    Enterprise Institute Press, 1999), http://www.federalismproject
    .org/publications/books (accessed 10/10/07).

  2. Cass Sunstein, Designing Democracy: What Constitutions Do
    (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), p. 107.

  3. J. W. Peltason, Corwin and Peltason’s Understanding the Con-
    stitution, 7th ed. (Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press, 1976), p. 177.

  4. Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469
    U.S. 528 (1985).

  5. Bond. v. United States, S.C. 09-1227 (2011).
    29. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), 520.
    30. Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001).
    31. Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004).
    32. Nevada Department of Human Resources v. Hibbs, 538 U.S. 721
    (2003).
    33. United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995).
    34. United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).
    35. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995).
    36. Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).
    37. Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1 (2005).
    38. National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius,
    567 U.S. ___ (2012).
    39. Ibid., p. 51.
    40. Jonathan Turley, “It’s Not the Cannabis, It’s the Constitution,”
    Los Angeles Times, August 5, 2002, Metro section, part 2, p. 11.
    41. American Society of Civil Engineers, “Report Card for Amer-
    ica’s Infra structure: 2009,” http://www.infrastructurereportcard.
    org/ (accessed 11/14/11).
    42. From a review of Greve, Real Federalism.
    43. Martha Derthick, Keeping the Compound Republic: Essays in
    American Federalism (Washington, DC: Brookings Institu-
    tion, 2001), pp. 9–32.


CHAPTER 4


  1. For information about the Westboro Baptist Church, see www
    .godhatesfags.com/wbcinfo/aboutwbc.html (accessed 12/2/11).
    The WBC is unaffi liated with the mainstream Baptist church
    and only has about 40 members, who are mostly relatives of
    the founder, Fred Phelps. According to the church’s web-
    site, since 1991 the WBC has held more than 47,000 antigay
    demonstrations.

  2. Timothy J. Nieman, Dean H. Dusinberre, and Lawrence M.
    Maher, “Brief for the Veterans of Foreign Wars as Amicus Cur-
    iae in Support of Petitioner,” U.S. Supreme Court, Snyder v.
    Phelps, May 28, 2010, p.4.

  3. Snyder v. Phelps, U.S. Supreme Court slip. op. 09-751 (2011).

  4. Snyder v. Phelps, Alito dissent.

  5. Arar v. Ashcroft et al., 2006 WL 346439 (E.D.N.Y.). The case
    was also dismissed because Arar, a Canadian citizen, did not

Free download pdf