Although the Bill of Rights has existed for two hundred years, the last half century has seen dramatic changes in its meaning and scope. The essays collected in this volume represent the full range of views and interpretations of what these first ten amendments to the U. S. Constitution mean today as guarantors of individual rights.

The contributors to this volume are among the most prominent constitutional scholars in the country. Most of the essays are grouped in pairs, each of which offers conflicting positions on current constitutional controversies, including property rights, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, levels of generality in constitutional interpreation, and unemumerated rights.

The contributors are: Bruce Ackerman, Mary E. Becker, Ronald Dworkin, Frank H. Easterbrook, Richard A. Epstein, Charles Fried, Mary Ann Glendon, Philip B. Kurland, Frank J. Michaelman, Michael W. McConnell, Richard A. Posner, Kathleen M. Sullivan, John Paul Stevens, David A. Strauss, and Cass R. Sunstein.

"A thoughtful and well coordinated set of exchanges between leading modern constitutional theorists about the most significant issues related to the Bill of Rights and the Welfare State. These issues are debated through penetrating essays by opposing theorists who get to the heart of these issues and provide significant answers to their debate opponents' points."—Thomas R. Van Dervort, Southeastern Political Review

While freedom of speech has been guaranteed us for centuries, the First Amendment as we know it today is largely a creation of the past eighty years. Eternally Vigilant brings together a group of distinguished legal scholars to reflect boldly on its past, its present shape, and what forms our understanding of it might take in the future. The result is a unique volume spanning the entire spectrum of First Amendment issues, from its philosophical underpinnings to specific issues like campaign regulation, obscenity, and the new media.

"With group efforts, such as this collection of essays, it is almost inevitable that there will be a couple—and often several—duds among the bunch, or at least a dismaying repetition of ideas. Such is not the case here. . . . Whether one agrees with a given author or not (and it is possible to do both with any of the essays), each has something to add. Overall, Eternally Vigilant is a thoughtful and thought-provoking book, consistently intelligent and, at times, brilliant."—Richard J. Mollot, New York Law Journal

Contributors:

Lillian R. BeVier
Vincent Blasi
Lee C. Bollinger
Stanley Fish
Owen M. Fiss
R. Kent Greenawalt
Richard A. Posner
Robert C. Post
Frederick Schauer
Geoffrey R. Stone
David A. Strauss
Cass R. Sunstein

Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

Since it first appeared in 1960, the Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Individual essays in the 1994 volume include articles by Craig M. Bradley on RICO and the first amendment; Bernard Schwartz on clear and present danger versus advocacy of unlawful action; William P. Marshall and Susan Gilles on the Supreme Court, the first amendment, and bad journalism; Paul Finkelman on Prigg v. Pennsylvania; Richard H. Fallon, Jr. on sexual harassment, content neutrality, and the first amendment; Lea Brilmayer on federalism, state authority, and the preemptive power of internal law; and C. Edwin Baker on Turner Broadcasting and content-based regulation of persons and presses.

"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticisms of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."—Ethics

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration.

"Some of the best researched and most thoughtful criticism of recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court."—Ethics

The Supreme Court Review keeps you at the forefront of the Court's most significant decisions by surveying its origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law and compelling you to consider the impacts of legal institutions and judicial opinion. Diverse essays of informed analyses of past and present opinions document the complexities of the Court and relevant public law issues. Legal scholars, lawyers, judges, historians, political scientists, economists, and journalists have won acclaim for their contributions to each volume.

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. Consisting of diverse essays by distinguished lawyers, historians, and social scientists, each volume presents informed analyses of past and present opinions and discusses important public law issues that have come under Court consideration.

Since its inception in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 elections in Florida, Federalism and state sovereignty, the Boerne v. Flores case, and numerous Fourth Amendment issues. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and the implications of Court decisions.

The Supreme Court Review receives accolades for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions and their resonating impacts. Recent scholarship addresses school vouchers via Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, Federalism and state sovereignty, the current state of political parties, and judicial passivity. Distinguished participants across the field of Law analyze current and previous public issues, sentiments, and implications addressed under Court consideration.

Since its inception in 1960, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussions of the Court's most significant decisions. Distinguished participants hereanalyze current and previous public issues and sentiments and discuss the implications of court decisions.

For forty-five years The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. Recent volumes have considered issues such as the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases. Distinguished participants analyze current and previous concerns and attitudes and discuss the implications of court decisions.  

For forty-eight years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, at the forefront of studies of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

For forty-nine years, the Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, one that strives to keep on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, the United States v. American Library Association case, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the court's most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross-burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, and numerous First- and Fourth-Amendment cases.

 

For fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. The Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth amendment cases.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has been lauded for providing authoritative discussion of the Court's most significant decisions. An in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, The Supreme Court Review keeps at the forefront of the reforms and interpretations of American law. Recent volumes have considered such issues as post-9/11 security, the 2000 presidential election, cross burning, federalism and state sovereignty, failed Supreme Court nominations, the battles concerning same-sex marriage, and numerous First and Fourth Amendment cases.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.

For more than fifty years, The Supreme Court Review has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court’s most significant decisions. The Supreme Court Review is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. It is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
 

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
 

Since it first appeared in 1960, The Supreme Court Review (SCR) has won acclaim for providing a sustained and authoritative survey of the implications of the Court's most significant decisions. SCR is an in-depth annual critique of the Supreme Court and its work, keeping up on the forefront of the origins, reforms, and interpretations of American law. SCR is written by and for legal academics, judges, political scientists, journalists, historians, economists, policy planners, and sociologists.
 
This year’s volume features prominent scholars assessing major legal events, including:
 
Mark Tushnet on President Trump’s “Muslim Ban”
Kate Andrias on Union Fees in the Public Sector
Cass R. Sunstein on Chevron without Chevron
Tracey Maclin on the Fourth Amendment and Unauthorized Drivers
Frederick Schauer on Precedent
Pamela Karlan on Gay Equality and Racial Equality
Randall Kennedy on Palmer v. Thompson
Lisa Marshall Manheim and Elizabeth G. Porter on Voter Suppression
Melissa Murray on Masterpiece Cakeshop
Vikram David Amar on Commandeering
Laura K. Donohue on Carpenter, Precedent, and Originalism
Evan Caminker on Carpenter and Stability