An introduction to the legal concept of unconstitutional bias. If a town council denies a zoning permit for a group home for intellectually disabled persons because residents don’t want “those kinds of people” in the neighborhood, the town’s decision is motivated by the public’s dislike of a particular group. Constitutional law calls this rationale “animus.” Over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly turned to the concept of animus to explain why some instances of discrimination are unconstitutional. However, the Court’s condemnation of animus fails to address some serious questions. How can animus on the part of people and institutions be uncovered? Does mere opposition to a particular group’s equality claims constitute animus? Does the concept of animus have roots in the Constitution? Animus engages these important questions, offering an original and provocative introduction to this type of unconstitutional bias. William Araiza analyzes some of the modern Supreme Court’s most important discrimination cases through the lens of animus, tracing the concept from nineteenth century legal doctrine to today’s landmark cases, including Obergefell vs. Hodges and United States v. Windsor, both related to the legal rights of same-sex couples. Animus humanizes what might otherwise be an abstract legal question, illustrating what constitutes animus, and why the prohibition against it matters more today than ever in our pluralistic society.
Why the public has lost faith in government and how it can be restored In 1964, over three-quarters of Americans trusted the federal government to do the right thing all or most of the time. By 1980, that number had plummeted to 26 percent, and Ronald Reagan won a sweeping victory for the presidency while proclaiming that government was not the solution to our problems but was itself the problem. Today, Americans’ trust in public institutions is at near historic lows and “bureaucracy” and “big government” are pejorative terms. In Rebuilding Expertise, William D. Araiza investigates the sources of this phenomenon and explains how we might rebuild trust in our public institutions. Written in accessible and engaging language, the author examines the history of this deterioration of trust and reveals how politicians from Clinton to Trump have allowed that deterioration to continue, and, in some cases, actively encouraged it. Using an interdisciplinary approach, with insights from history, political science, law, and public administration, Araiza explores our current bureaucratic malaise and presents a roadmap to finding our way out of it, toward a regime marked by effective, expert regulation that remains democratically accountable and politically legitimate. A timely and indispensable read, Rebuilding Expertise makes clear what steps must be taken to regain public trust in our government.
For over a century, Congress’s power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “the equal protection of the laws” has presented judges and scholars with a puzzle. What does it mean for Congress to “enforce” such a wide-ranging, open-ended provision when the Supreme Court has insisted on its own superiority in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment? In Enforcing the Equal Protection Clause, William D. Araiza offers a unique understanding of Congress’s enforcement power and its relationship to the Court’s claim to supremacy when interpreting the Constitution. Drawing on the history of American thinking about equality in the decades before and after the Civil War, Araiza argues that congressional enforcement and judicial supremacy can co-exist, but only if the Court limits its role to ensuring that enforcement legislation reasonably promotes the core meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Much of the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence stops short of stating such core meaning, thus leaving Congress free (subject to appropriate judicial checks) to enforce the full scope of the constitutional guarantee. Araiza’s thesis reconciles the Supreme Court’s ultimate role in interpreting the Constitution with Congress’s superior capacity to transform the Fourteenth Amendment’s majestic principles into living reality. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Enforcement Clause raises difficult issues of separation of powers, federalism, and constitutional rights. Araiza illuminates each of these in this scholarly, timely work that is both intellectually rigorous but also accessible to non-specialist readers.
An introduction to the legal concept of unconstitutional bias. If a town council denies a zoning permit for a group home for intellectually disabled persons because residents don’t want “those kinds of people” in the neighborhood, the town’s decision is motivated by the public’s dislike of a particular group. Constitutional law calls this rationale “animus.” Over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has increasingly turned to the concept of animus to explain why some instances of discrimination are unconstitutional. However, the Court’s condemnation of animus fails to address some serious questions. How can animus on the part of people and institutions be uncovered? Does mere opposition to a particular group’s equality claims constitute animus? Does the concept of animus have roots in the Constitution? Animus engages these important questions, offering an original and provocative introduction to this type of unconstitutional bias. William Araiza analyzes some of the modern Supreme Court’s most important discrimination cases through the lens of animus, tracing the concept from nineteenth century legal doctrine to today’s landmark cases, including Obergefell vs. Hodges and United States v. Windsor, both related to the legal rights of same-sex couples. Animus humanizes what might otherwise be an abstract legal question, illustrating what constitutes animus, and why the prohibition against it matters more today than ever in our pluralistic society.
Rebuilding Expertise traces the decline in the reality of and public trust in federal bureaucratic expertise, and offers a step-by-step, practical roadmap for rebuilding the quality of federal regulation and Americans' faith in their regulatory apparatus"--
For over a century, Congress’s power to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of “the equal protection of the laws” has presented judges and scholars with a puzzle. What does it mean for Congress to “enforce” such a wide-ranging, open-ended provision when the Supreme Court has insisted on its own superiority in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment? In Enforcing the Equal Protection Clause, William D. Araiza offers a unique understanding of Congress’s enforcement power and its relationship to the Court’s claim to supremacy when interpreting the Constitution. Drawing on the history of American thinking about equality in the decades before and after the Civil War, Araiza argues that congressional enforcement and judicial supremacy can co-exist, but only if the Court limits its role to ensuring that enforcement legislation reasonably promotes the core meaning of the Equal Protection Clause. Much of the Court’s equal protection jurisprudence stops short of stating such core meaning, thus leaving Congress free (subject to appropriate judicial checks) to enforce the full scope of the constitutional guarantee. Araiza’s thesis reconciles the Supreme Court’s ultimate role in interpreting the Constitution with Congress’s superior capacity to transform the Fourteenth Amendment’s majestic principles into living reality. The Fourteenth Amendment’s Enforcement Clause raises difficult issues of separation of powers, federalism, and constitutional rights. Araiza illuminates each of these in this scholarly, timely work that is both intellectually rigorous but also accessible to non-specialist readers.
View or download the free 2014 Online Supplement for this product. In attempting to come closer to that elusive goal, the Fourth Edition features several significant changes. First, it provides, at appropriate points, concise statements of the frameworks of analysis developed by the Court to resolve constitutional claims. Providing these analytical frameworks is designed to provide a jumping-off point for students to consider the more difficult issues that lurk behind those rules. Second, the Fourth Edition has attempted to highlight areas of the law that are often under-studied in a basic constitutional law class, such as immigration, naturalization and citizenship issues. Third, the Fourth Edition aims to prepare students for practice. The process of making constitutional "law" is more than the process by which the Supreme Court writes an opinion stating broad principles. The process happens every day, in small decisions made in courthouses, city halls and police stations across the nation. The accompanying Teacher's Manual explains the authors' conception of the materials and offers a detailed analysis of the key cases.
View or download the free 2017 Online Supplement for this product. This casebook rests on a straightforward premise: The First Amendment can be viewed as history, as policy, and as theory, but from a lawyer's perspective, it is above all law-albeit a special kind of law. One thing that is special is that the governing texts have receded into the background. The law is the cases, and the cases are the law. Close analysis of precedent is therefore the principal tool of argumentation and adjudication. The purpose of this casebook is to help students to learn the law in a way that will enable them to use it in the service of clients. Several features of the book promote this goal. The cases are edited with a relatively light hand. Notes and questions provide guidance in working with the opinions. The structure of the book-closely tracking the structure that the Supreme Court has imposed-helps to reinforce learning. Non-case materials (including drafts and memoranda from the Justices' private papers) are used to shed light on what was established by existing precedents and how a new decision changes (or does not change) the law. By giving primacy to the Justice' won words and the Court's own doctrinal structure, the book offers maximum flexibility for teachers to place their own imprint on the course. The Third Edition has the following new features: A new section devoted to the Supreme Court's recent decisions rejecting requests to add to the categories of unprotected speech (US v. Stevens, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn, US v. Alvarez) A reworked section on campaign finance that presents the relevant information in compact, teachable form A reworked chapter on the relationships between the two Religion Clauses that gives prominence to the Court's important 2012 decision in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church v. EEOC Compact Note treatment of several older cases with sufficient extracts to permit in-depth class discussion The accompanying Teacher's Manual offers extensive guidance for taking advantage of the breadth-and depth-of coverage offered by the casebook. The authors have included three different sample syllabi. The running commentary fully analyzes the cases and suggests possible directions for class discussion. The authors also provide answers to the questions that appear in the notes and identify the origins and sources for the Problems. This book also is available in a three-hole punched, alternative loose-leaf version printed on 8.5 x 11 inch paper with wider margins and with the same pagination as the hardbound book.
This will help us customize your experience to showcase the most relevant content to your age group
Please select from below
Login
Not registered?
Sign up
Already registered?
Success – Your message will goes here
We'd love to hear from you!
Thank you for visiting our website. Would you like to provide feedback on how we could improve your experience?
This site does not use any third party cookies with one exception — it uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and to analyze traffic.Learn More.