Subject Area: American Supreme Court
A compendium of amicus briefs (the largest number ever presented to the Supreme Court) for the use of scholars in this field.2008 0-7734-4997-3
An examination of United States National Security Policy, since the events of September 11, 2001, from the perspective of American constitutional law.2010 0-7734-3832-7
The primary audience of this work will be scholars who study judicial process and behavior at the federal level of government. The data cover in excess of 205 years of American history. No comprehensive work on this subject has ever been published.2005 0-7734-5852-2
This study examines the judicial philosophy of original intent and how the 1987 Robert Bork hearings impacted the judicial nomination and confirmation process. Although the debate had raged in the law schools for decades, the debate became public during Ronald Reagan’s second term. The Bork nomination was a merging of jurisprudence and politics. Following Bork’s rejection, many opponents of original intent argued that originalism was dead. The purpose of this research was to determine if the original intent debate still exists and how the Bork episode affected the nomination and confirmation process.
This study examines the scholarly literature on the emergence of the original intent debate, the exchange of words between Edwin Meese and William Brennan, the confirmation process prior to 1987, the Bork hearings, how the Bork hearings impacted post-Bork nominations and confirmations, Bill Clinton’s nominees to the federal judiciary, and the current status of original intent. Interviews with participants on both sides of this debate are included in this study.1989 0-88946-104-X
A search for the roots of the United States' failures and successes, accenting the American philosophers of the Golden Age - Peirce, Holmes, Dewey - while taking note of classics from Plato to Hegel.2005 0-7734-6073-X
This work establishes the intent and application of the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Its traces the amendment’s historic origins to the Federalist—Anti-Federalist debates. It links the provenance of the Ninth Amendment back to the state constitutions, bills of rights and positive laws of the Constitution’s Framing period. It discusses James Madison’s introduction of the Bill of Rights during the first Congress. It reviews each recommendatory amendment submitted by the states during the ratification process along with each state constitution and bill of rights contemporaneous with the Framing. It examines each Supreme Court decision referencing the Ninth Amendment. It also summarizes main Ninth Amendment theories described in the literature.
The author presents a case for finding Ninth Amendment unenumerated rights within the positive law of the framing period as expressed in the state bills of rights and constitutions and within the penumbras formed by specifically enumerated rights.2005 0-7734-5944-8
This study offers a legally and methodologically acceptable approach that governments can use to generate factual predicate for establishing compelling state interest in adopting race preference programs in government contracting under the United States Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny standard of review. Race preference programs are critical for increasing opportunities among minority firms to do business with government. These programs have come under judicial attack in recent years at both the state and federal government levels because they do not serve a “compelling state interest” to correct discrimination in the government contracting process. The courts rejected these programs as premised on evidence that do not offer a legally and methodologically acceptable probative explanation of the extent to which discrimination influence contract award to minority firms under the United States Supreme Court’s strict scrutiny standard. Using the City of St. Petersburg as the research setting, this study combines quantitative and qualitative approaches to determine probative explanation of the extent to which discrimination influence contract awards to minority-owned firms within the framework of the Supreme Court strict scrutiny standard. These approaches can be relied upon by any government entity to ascertain if race preference and/or race neutral remedial policies are warranted.2006 0-7734-5843-3
This study examines the irreconcilable demands of American contradicting political mythology and how this dynamic is played out in the arena of constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. Unlike those who argue that America suffers from the paradoxical contradictions in its ideas (see, for example, H. Mark Roelofs, The Poverty of American Politics
), this book suggests that the very strength of American political idealism lies in its contradictions, and that the Supreme Court’s essential role is the preservation of those contradicting ideals. In early chapters, classic liberal demands and contradictions as well as republican ideals are examined. The author argues that healthy liberalism is dependent upon a healthy republican ideal. The author further demonstrates that dominant judicial philosophies from the right and left are all inadequate due to their failure to comprehend the Court’s mythical responsibilities. In the final chapter, Roe v. Wade
and Bush v. Gore
are shown as examples where the Court failed. By refusing to take their mythological responsibilities seriously, the Court’s opinions in these cases appear to rest on blatant power politics. It is as if the members of the Court blatantly replaced their mythical priestly robes with the hats of highly suspect politicians. A brief examination of Brown v. Board of Education
reveals a Court meeting its obligation by carefully staying in the realm of myth as it cautiously resolved the case. The author further argues that the nation would be well served if justices on the Court would pursue this most important political responsibility when exercising judicial review and that conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, all have a vital interest in encouraging justices on the Court to accept this responsibility. The author suggests that conflicting idealism is essential to freedom as it checks powerful political agendas from the right and the left, and demonstrates that the Supreme Court is uniquely positioned to promote this idealism. History has shown that a single unifying political philosophy, which makes it easy to run rough-shod over all who stand in its way, it not always desirable. The strength of American idealism is that it refuses to grant full legitimacy to virtually any government initiative.