The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.
This work is the second of a multi-volume treatise. It covers Federal Judicial Powers, the Bill of Rights, Individual Rights: the 9th Amendment, State Powers, Powers Denied to States, and Separation of Powers. The volume is styled, The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed—A Coroner's Inquest and Report. “Judice”, Latin, a pun, means “pertaining to judges”; thus denoting the judicial, Judas-like betrayal of the Constitution. “Coroner's Inquest” denotes that the work is a study into the death of the Constitution. Your author is the Coroner. He proceeds in the Inquest with the aid of his Coroner's Jury: Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Story, Locke, and Blackstone. The work in this volume is a dialogue between the Coroner and his jury on the various parts of the Constitution covered. The jury members answer the Coroner's questions, for the most part in their own words, drawn from a variety of their written works. Occasionally the Coroner puts words in their mouths; those “inventions” are shown in brackets in the jurors' answers. The work is novel, because, to the author's knowledge, it is the only “Constitutional Law” textbook that collects the wisdom of the framers as the Constitution's only authoritative sources; it does not, as most Constitutional Law texts do, emphasize court cases as constitutional authority, for more often than not, the courts have only warped the Constitution. In a broader sense, though, the work is not novel, for it's only an arrangement of the work already done by the jurors. The author is pleased to say that the work, by and large, is not original thought. Its beauty is that it only revives long-forgotten constitutional “discoveries” as set in the words of the main jurors and some others within “interviewed”. Note to purchasers: For updates to the manuscript, check "Pastoral Republican" @ http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/
...A potent and original examination of how the Supreme Court subverted justice and empowered the Jim Crow era.In the years following the Civil War, the 13th Amendment abolished slavery; the 14th conferred citizenship and equal protection under the law to white and black; and the 15th gave black American males the right to vote. In 1875, the most comprehensive civil rights legislation in the nation's history granted all Americans "the full and equal enjoyment" of public accommodations. Just eight years later, the Supreme Court, by an 8-1 vote, overturned the Civil Rights Act as unconstitutional and, in the process, disemboweled the equal protection provisions of the 14th Amendment. Using court records and accounts of the period, Lawrence Goldstone chronicles how "by the dawn of the 20th century the U.S. had become the nation of Jim Crow laws, quasi-slavery, and precisely the same two-tiered system of justice that had existed in the slave era."The very human story of how and why this happened make Inherently Unequal as important as it is provocative. Examining both celebrated decisions like Plessy v. Ferguson and those often overlooked, Goldstone demonstrates how the Supreme Court turned a blind eye to the obvious reality of racism, defending instead the business establishment and status quo--thereby legalizing the brutal prejudice that came to define the Jim Crow era.
In this "meticulously researched" account (New York Times Book Review), a Pulitzer Prize-winning author examines the dangers of a failing public health system unequipped to handle large-scale global risks like a coronavirus pandemic. The New York Times bestselling author of The Coming Plague, Laurie Garrett takes on perhaps the most crucial global issue of our time in this eye-opening book. She asks: is our collective health in a state of decline? If so, how dire is this crisis and has the public health system itself contributed to it? Using riveting detail and finely-honed storytelling, exploring outbreaks around the world, Garrett exposes the underbelly of the world's globalization to find out if it can still be assumed that government can and will protect the people's health, or if that trust has been irrevocably broken. "A frightening vision of the future and a deeply unsettling one . . . a sober, scary book that not only limns the dangers posed by emerging diseases but also raises serious questions about two centuries' worth of Enlightenment beliefs in science and technology and progress." -- Michiko Kakutani, The New York Times
“Hartmann delivers a full-throated indictment of the U.S. Supreme Court in this punchy polemic." —Publishers Weekly Thom Hartmann, the most popular progressive radio host in America and a New York Times bestselling author, explains how the Supreme Court has spilled beyond its Constitutional powers and how we the people should take that power back. Taking his typically in-depth, historically informed view, Thom Hartmann asks, What if the Supreme Court didn't have the power to strike down laws? According to the Constitution, it doesn't. From the founding of the republic until 1803, the Supreme Court was the final court of appeals, as it was always meant to be. So where did the concept of judicial review start? As so much of modern American history, it began with the battle between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, and with Marbury v. Madison. Hartmann argues it is not the role of the Supreme Court to decide what the law is but rather the duty of the people themselves. He lays out the history of the Supreme Court of the United States, since Alexander Hamilton's defense to modern-day debates, with key examples of cases where the Supreme Court overstepped its constitutional powers. The ultimate remedy to the Supreme Court's abuse of power is with the people--the ultimate arbiter of the law--using the ballot box. America does not belong to the kings and queens; it belongs to the people.
At the end of World War II the Allies faced a threefold challenge: how to punish perpetrators of appalling crimes for which the categories of 'genocide' and 'crimes against humanity' had to be coined; how to explain that these had been committed by Germany, of all nations; and how to reform Germans. The Allied answer to this conundrum was the application of historical reasoning to legal procedure. In the thirteen Nuremberg trials held between 1945 and 1949, and in corresponding cases elsewhere, a concerted effort was made to punish key perpetrators while at the same time providing a complex analysis of the Nazi state and German history. Building on a long debate about Germany's divergence from a presumed Western path of development, Allied prosecutors sketched a historical trajectory which had led Germany to betray the Western model. Historical reasoning both accounted for the moral breakdown of a 'civilised' nation and rendered plausible arguments that this had indeed been a collective failure rather than one of a small criminal clique. The prosecutors therefore carefully laid out how institutions such as private enterprise, academic science, the military, or bureaucracy, which looked ostensibly similar to their opposite numbers in the Allied nations, had been corrupted in Germany even before Hitler's rise to power. While the argument, depending on individual protagonists, subject matters, and contexts, met with uneven success in court, it offered a final twist which was of obvious appeal in the Cold War to come: if Germany had lost its way, it could still be brought back into the Western fold. The first comprehensive study of the Nuremberg trials, The Betrayal thus also explores how history underpins transitional trials as we encounter them in today's courtrooms from Arusha to The Hague.
"In recent years, the concept of fair and equitable treatment has assumed prominence in investment relations between States. While the earliest proposals that made reference to this standard of treatment for investment are contained in various multilateral efforts in the period immediately following World War II, the bulk of the State practice incorporating the standard is to be found in bilateral investment treaties which have become a central feature in international investment relations. In essence, the fair and equitable standard provides a yardstick by which relations between foreign direct investors and Governments of capital-importing countries may be assessed. It also acts as a signal from capital-importing countries, for it indicates, at the very least, a State's willingness to accommodate foreign capital on terms that take into account the interests of the investor in fairness and equity."--Provided by publisher.
Universities once believed themselves to be sacred enclaves, where students and professors could debate the issues of the day and arrive at a better understanding of the human condition. Today, sadly, this ideal of the university is being quietly betrayed from within. Universities still set themselves apart from American society, but now they do so by enforcing their own politically correct worldview through censorship, double standards, and a judicial system without due process. Faculty and students who threaten the prevailing norms may be forced to undergo "thought reform." In a surreptitious aboutface, universities have become the enemy of a free society, and the time has come to hold these institutions to account. The Shadow University is a stinging indictment of the covert system of justice on college campuses, exposing the widespread reliance on kangaroo courts and arbitrary punishment to coerce students and faculty into conformity. Alan Charles Kors and Harvey A. Silverglate, staunch civil libertarians and active defenders of free inquiry on campus, lay bare the totalitarian mindset that undergirds speech codes, conduct codes, and "campus life" bureaucracies, through which a cadre of deans and counselors indoctrinate students and faculty in an ideology that favors group rights over individual rights, sacrificing free speech and academic freedom to spare the sensitivities of currently favored groups. From Maine to California, at public and private universities alike, liberty and fairness are the first casualties as teachers and students find themselves in the dock, presumed guilty until proven innocent and often forbidden to cross-examine their accusers. Kors and Silverglate introduce us to many of those who have firsthand experience of the shadow university, including: The student at the center of the 1993 "Water Buffalo" case at the University of Pennsylvania, who was brought up on charges of racial harassment after calling a group of rowdy students "water buffalo" -- even though the term has no racial connotations. The Catholic residence adviser who was fired for refusing, on grounds of religious conscience, to wear a symbol of gay and lesbian causes. The professor who was investigated for sexual harassment when he disagreed with campus feminists about curriculum issues. The student who was punished for laughing at a statement deemed offensive to others and who was ordered to undergo "sensitivity training" as a result. The Shadow University unmasks a chilling reality for parents who entrust their sons and daughters to the authority of such institutions, for thinking people who recognize that vigorous debate is the only sure path to truth, and for all Americans who realize that when even one citizen is deprived of liberty, we are all diminished.
This work is the fourth of a four-volume treatise. In twelve sections, it covers: Death of Contract, Full Faith & Credit, 9th Amendment: Only an ‘Inkblot’?, Other Jurisdictional Usurpations by The Court for Itself, Ashcroft Hearings: ‘Pyrrhus Testifies’, Field Test № 1: The Government and Major League Baseball vs. The Taxpayers—Into the Judicial Bull-Pen, Field Test № 2: Joan of Arc vs. IRS—Of Hamster Nostrils, Hexing Studies, and the Government's Official Renunciation of The Federalist, Field Test №3: Anatomy of a Judicial Murder: Of Beanbags, Unnatural Acts with Sheep, and a Judicial Pardon for a Governor, Ex-Cathedra: Perpetuity of Infallible Error, Two Constitutions: The Court's vs. The Founders', Judici Officium Suum Excedenti Non Paretur: Constitutional Convention Anyone? The volume is styled, The Kiss of Judice: The Constitution Betrayed-A Coroner's Inquest and Report. 'Judice', Latin, a pun, means 'pertaining to judges'; thus denoting the judicial, Judas-like betrayal of the Constitution. 'Coroner's Inquest' denotes that the work is a study into the death of the Constitution. Your author is the Coroner. He proceeds in the Inquest with the aid of his Coroner's Jury: Jefferson, Madison, Hamilton, Story, Locke, and Blackstone. The work in the first two volumes of the treatise is a dialogue between the Coroner and his jury on the various parts of the Constitution covered. The jury members answer the Coroner's questions, for the most part in their own words, drawn from a variety of their written works. Occasionally the Coroner puts words in their mouths; those 'inventions' are shown in brackets in the jurors' answers. In the third and fourth volumes, the lessons of the Founders in Volumes 1 and 2 are applied to cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Most readers will be astonished at how often the supreme court has gotten it wrong either in result, reasoning, or both. The work is novel, because, to the author's knowledge, it is the only 'Constitutional Law' textbook that collects the wisdom of the framers as the Constitution's only authoritative sources; it does not, as most Constitutional Law texts do, emphasize court cases as constitutional authority, for more often than not, the court has only warped the Constitution. In a broader sense, though, the work is not novel, for it's only an arrangement of the work already done by the jurors. The author is pleased to say that the work, by and large, is not original thought. Its beauty is that it only revives long-forgotten constitutional 'discoveries' as set in the words of the main jurors and some others within 'interviewed'. Note to purchasers: For updates to the manuscript, check "Pastoral Republican" @ http://douglassbartley.wordpress.com/
In this timely and eye-opening book, noted political analyst and media commentator Dr. Earl Ofari Hutchinson traces the root cause of the White House's failure to protect the rights of African Americans. Drawing extensively from public and private presidential papers, private correspondence, personal interviews, and national archive documents, Hutchinson gives a rich historical account of the racial philosophy, policies, and practices of successive presidents from Warren G. Harding to Bill Clinton. Franklin D. Roosevelt is one example. The popular view is that Roosevelt was a Mend to blacks because of his enactment of New Deal programs. But he was also a prisoner of the biased racial thinking of his times. He refused to actively support antilynching legislation and repeatedly curried political favor with racist southern Democrats. Lyndon B. Johnson is yet another example. He is known as a champion of civil rights, but Hutchinson details two crucial moments when Johnson shrank from using the full force of executive power to push Congress to enact new and tougher federal criminal civil rights statutes to punish racist violence. In this book, Hutchinson reveals that no American president has ever signed into law a federal antilynching bill despite a 50-year campaign by the NAACP for presidential and congressional action. He documents how Nixon, Reagan, and Bush rolled back civil rights and affirmative action, failed to fully enforce equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against police abuse and racial violence, encouraged conservative legal obstructionism, and fueled the rise of a repressive domestic security state. These actions in turn have reinforced institutionalized racism and continued the historical pattern of devaluing black lives in law and public policy. Finally, Hutchinson warns that the century-old failure by the White House to enforce federal law to protect black lives still has dangerous consequences for American society.
