Winner of the Pulitzer Prize in history and a landmark in the study of constitutional origins, Leonard Levy’s now-classic study appears for the first time in paperback. Origins probes the intentions of the framers of the Fifth Amendment and emphasizes their belief that in a society based upon respect for the individual, it is more important that the accused not unwillingly contribute to his conviction than that the guilty be punished. "A work of monumental scholarship―broad in scope, thorough, carefully annotated, accurate, and imaginative."―Political Science Quarterly. "Vastly learned...everywhere critical and reflective...written in a style at once lucid and vigorous. All in all, it is quite clearly one of the important contributions to historical literature."―Henry Steele Commager. "A matchless contribution to our understanding of the historical background underlying the adoption of a major provision of the Bill of Rights."―American Political Science Review. "A masterful job."―Oscar Handlin.

Government's ever-increasing participation in communication processes, Mark Yudof argues, threatens key democratic values that the First Amendment was designed to protect. Government control over the exchange of ideas and information would be inconsistent with citizen autonomy, informed consent, and a balanced and mutually responsive relationship between citizens and their government. Yet the danger of government dominance must be weighed against the necessary role of government in furthering democratic values by proposing and promotion policies and by disseminating information and educating citizens. Restraints on government's ability to control communications processes are desirable, but excessive or inappropriate restrictions threaten democracy. Professor Yudof identifies a number of formal and informal checks on government as disseminator, withholder, and controller of ideas and information. Where more controls are needed, the strengthening of pluralism and legislative oversight is generally the answer. Constitutional redress in the courts should be sought only in extreme instances, he cautions, to avoid judicial interference with legitimate policy objectives.

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

When the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) was founded just over a century ago the practice of referring disputes to international tribunals was un usual. Instead, arbitration, with its procedural emphasis on party-autonomy, was seen as the only acceptable way for sovereign states to settle their differences peacefully. War and neutrality, as Professor Shabtai Rosenne explains in his in troduction to this most welcome publication of extracts from the proceedings of the International Peace Conferences, were regarded as inevitable realities of in ternational relations as late as the mid-twentieth century. Moreover, a perma nent tribunal with international jurisdiction would not have stood much chance of either success, or survival, at the end ofthe nineteenth century. The First International Peace Conference in 1899 adopted the 1899 Conven tion for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, the objectives of which were international disarmament and the strengthening of international dispute settlement as an alternative to war. The 1899 Convention alsocreated the PCA in an effort to institutionalize dispute resolution through a third party mechanism.