front cover of The Global Debate over Constitutional Property
The Global Debate over Constitutional Property
Lessons for American Takings Jurisprudence
Gregory S. Alexander
University of Chicago Press, 2006
Countries around the world are heatedly debating whether property should be a constitutional right. But American lawyers have largely ignored this debate, which is divided into two clear camps: those who believe making property a constitutional right undermines democracy by fostering inequality, and those who believe it provides the security necessary to make democracy possible. In The Global Debate over Constitutional Property, Gregory Alexander recasts this discussion, arguing that both sides overlook a key problem: that constitutional protection, or lack thereof, has little bearing on how a society actually treats property.

A society’s traditions and culture, Alexander argues, have a much greater effect on property rights. Laws must aim, then, to change cultural ideas of property, rather than deem whether one has the right to own it. Ultimately, Alexander builds a strong case for improving American takings law by borrowing features from the laws of other countries—particularly those laws based on the idea that owning property not only confers rights, but also entails responsibilities to society as a whole.
[more]
front cover of A Good Quarrel
A Good Quarrel
America's Top Legal Reporters Share Stories from Inside the Supreme Court
Timothy R. Johnson and Jerry Goldman, Editors
University of Michigan Press, 2009

While reading what top legal reporters say about some of the most important U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments in recent history, go to www.goodquarrel.com to listen to audio and hear for yourself the very style and delivery of the oral arguments that have shaped the history of our nation's highest law. See Preface for full instructions.

Contributors

  • Charles Bierbauer, CNN
  • Lyle Denniston, scotusblog.com
  • Fred Graham, Court TV
  • Brent Kendall, Los Angeles Daily Journal
  • Steve Lash, Houston Chronicle
  • Dahlia Lithwick, Slate.com
  • Tony Mauro, American Lawyer Media
  • Tim O'Brien, ABC News
  • David Savage, Los Angeles Times
  • Greg Stohr, Bloomberg News
  • Nina Totenberg, NPR

Timothy R. Johnson teaches in the Department of Political Science and the Law School at the University of Minnesota.

Jerry Goldman teaches political science at Northwestern University and directs the OYEZ Project, a multimedia archive devoted to the Supreme Court, at www.oyez.org.

Cover sketch by Dana Verkouteren

"Supreme Court oral arguments are good government in action. A Good Quarrel brilliantly showcases this important aspect of the Court's work."
---Paul Clement, Partner, King & Spalding, and former United States Solicitor General

"Few legal experiences are as exhilarating as a Supreme Court oral argument---a unique art form that this superb collection brings vividly to life."
---Kathleen Sullivan, Partner, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver and Hedges, and former Dean, Stanford Law School

"[A Good Quarrel] shines a brilliant spotlight on the pivotal moment of advocacy when the Supreme Court confronts the nation's most profound legal questions."
---Thomas C. Goldstein, Partner, Akin Gump, and Lecturer, Supreme Court Litigation, Harvard Law School and Stanford Law School

"A brilliant way to understand America's most important mysterious institution."
---Lawrence Lessig, Stanford Law School

[more]

front cover of Guns and Violence
Guns and Violence
The English Experience
Joyce Lee Malcolm
Harvard University Press, 2002

Behind the passionate debate over gun control and armed crime lurk assumptions about the link between guns and violence. Indeed, the belief that more guns in private hands means higher rates of armed crime underlies most modern gun control legislation. But are these assumptions valid?

Investigating the complex and controversial issue of the real relationship between guns and violence, Joyce Lee Malcolm presents an incisive, thoroughly researched historical study of England, whose strict gun laws and low rates of violent crime are often cited as proof that gun control works. To place the private ownership of guns in context, Malcolm offers a wide-ranging examination of English society from the Middle Ages to the late twentieth century, analyzing changing attitudes toward crime and punishment, the impact of war, economic shifts, and contrasting legal codes on violence. She looks at the level of armed crime in England before its modern restrictive gun legislation, the limitations that gun laws have imposed, and whether those measures have succeeded in reducing the rate of armed crime.

Malcolm also offers a revealing comparison of the experience in England experience with that in the modern United States. Today Americans own some 200 million guns and have seen eight consecutive years of declining violence, while the English--prohibited from carrying weapons and limited in their right to self-defense have suffered a dramatic increase in rates of violent crime.

This timely and thought-provoking book takes a crucial step in illuminating the actual relationship between guns and violence in modern society.

[more]
front cover of Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea
Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea
Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson
University of Michigan Press, 2009
"Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea recasts the gun debate by showing its importance to the future of democracy and the modern regulatory state. Until now, gun rights advocates had effectively co-opted the language of liberty and democracy and made it their own. This book is an important first step in demonstrating how reasonable gun control is essential to the survival of democracy and ordered liberty."
---Saul Cornell, Ohio State University
When gun enthusiasts talk about constitutional liberties guaranteed by the Second Amendment, they are referring to freedom in a general sense, but they also have something more specific in mind---freedom from government oppression. They argue that the only way to keep federal authority in check is to arm individual citizens who can, if necessary, defend themselves from an aggressive government. In the past decade, this view of the proper relationship between government and individual rights and the insistence on a role for private violence in a democracy has been co-opted by the conservative movement. As a result, it has spread beyond extreme militia groups to influence state and national policy.
In Guns, Democracy, and the Insurrectionist Idea, Joshua Horwitz and Casey Anderson set the record straight. They challenge the proposition that more guns equal more freedom and expose Insurrectionism as a true threat to freedom in the United States today.
Joshua Horwitz received a law degree from George Washington University and is currently a visiting scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
Casey Anderson holds a law degree from Georgetown University and is currently a lawyer in private practice in Washington, D.C.
[more]

Send via email Share on Facebook Share on Twitter