Read more
Klappentext The Taking Sides Collection on McGraw-Hill Create® includes current controversial issues in a debate-style forma designed to stimulate student interest and develop critical thinking skills. This Collection contains a multitude of current and classic issues to enhance and customize your course. You can browse the entire Taking Sides Collection on Create or you can search by topic, author, or keywords. Each Taking Sides issue is thoughtfully framed with Learning Outcomes, an Issue Summary, an Introduction, and an "Exploring the Issue" section featuring Critical Thinking and Reflection, Is There Common Ground?, Additional Resources, and Internet References. Go to the Taking Sides Collection on McGraw-Hill Create® at www.mcgrawhillcreate.com/takingsides and click on "Explore this Collection" to browse the entire Collection. Select individual Taking Sides issues to enhance your course, or access and select the entire Katsh, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, 18/e book here http://create.mheducation.com/createonline/index.html#qlink=search%2Ftext%3Disbn:125988368X for an easy, pre-built teaching resource. Visit http://create.mheducation.com for more information on other McGraw-Hill titles and special collections. Inhaltsverzeichnis Unit 1: Law and Terrorism Issue: Should U.S. Citizens Who Are Declared to Be "Enemy Combatants" Be Able to Contest Their Detention before a Judge? Yes: Sandra Day O'Connor, from "Majority Opinion, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld," United States Supreme Court (2004)No: Clarence Thomas, from "Minority Opinion, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld," United States Supreme Court (2004) Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor finds that the Authorization for Use of Military Force passed by Congress does not authorize the indefinite detainment of a person found to be an "enemy combatant." Justice Clarence Thomas believes that the detention of an "enemy combatant" is permitted under the federal government's war powers. Issue: Does the President Possess Constitutional Authority to Order Wiretaps on U.S. Citizens? Yes: U.S. Department of Justice, from "Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President," United States Department of Justice (2006)No: Letter to Congress, from "Letter to Congress from 14 Law Professors and Former Government Attorneys to Congressional Leaders," United States Congress (2006) The Department of Justice argues that the Constitution gives the President the right to engage in electronic surveillance, with or without congressional approval or judicial oversight. It further claims that the National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping program ordered by President Bush does not violate federal law, specifically the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), because such surveillance falls under the auspices of the military response to the 9/11 attacks, which was authorized by Congress. Several lawyers with expertise in constitutional law or experience in the federal government argue that the NSA wiretapping program violates FISA and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. They further argue that the President does not have any inherent authority either to engage in warrantless wiretapping or to violate federal law that limits such surveillance. Unit 2: Law and the Individual Issue: Is It Unconstitutional for a State to Require Physicians Who Perform Abortions to Have Admitting Privileges at a Nearby Hospital and for Abortion Clinics to Have Facilities Comparable to an Ambulatory Surgical Center? Yes: Stephen Breyer, from "Majority Opinion, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt," United States Supreme Court (2016)No: Clarence Thomas, from "Dissenting Opinion, Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt," United States Supreme Court (2016) Justice Breyer argues that two provisions in a Texas law-requiring physicians who perform abortions to have adm...
