The Federalist (later known as The Federalist Papers) is a collection of 85 articles and essays written (under the pseudonym Publius) by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution. Seventy-seven were published serially in The Independent Journal and The New York Packet between October 1787 and August 1788. A compilation of these and eight others, called The Federalist: A Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787, was published in two volumes in 1788 by J. and A. McLean.

In Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law, Alan Dershowitz—#1 New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—analyses the unremitting efforts by political opponents of Donald Trump to “get” him—to stop him from running in 2024—at any cost. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek . Get Trump makes clear that unconstitutional efforts to stop Trump from retaking the presidency challenge the very foundations of our liberty: due process, right to counsel, and free speech. Those who justify these dangerous departures from the rule of law argue that the threat posed by a second Trump presidency is “different” and “immediate,” while the departures from constitutional norms are longer term and more abstract. Dershowitz explains that defenders of Trump’s constitutional rights—even those like him who oppose Trump politically—are sought to be silenced; their free speech rights attacked, their integrity questioned, and their careers threatened. Much of the media substitutes advocacy against Trump for objective reporting, while many in academia petition and propagandize against rights they previously valued—all in the interest of getting Trump. The essence of justice is that it must be equally applicable to all, Dershowitz notes. No one is above the law but digging to find crimes in order to influence an election does not constitute the equal application of the law. In order to assure equal application in comparable situations, he proposes two criteria for indicting a likely candidate of the opposing party: the Richard Nixon standard and the Hillary Clinton standard—and most recently, the Joe Biden standard. Get Trump warns that regardless of whether this anti-democratic effort to stop Trump from running succeeds or fails, it is likely to create dangerous precedents that will lie around like loaded weapons ready to be deployed against other controversial candidates, officials, or citizens about whom it can be argued that the danger they pose “is different.”

As Congress prepares articles of impeachment of President Trump, read the definitive book on presidential impeachment and how it should be used today. Impeachment is our ultimate constitutional check against an out-of-control executive. But it is also a perilous and traumatic undertaking for the nation. In this authoritative examination, Laurence Tribe and Joshua Matz rise above the daily clamor to illuminate impeachment's proper role in our age of broken politics. Now revised with a new epilogue, To End a Presidency is an essential book for anyone seeking to understand how this fearsome power should be deployed.

In War on Woke: Why the New McCarthyism Is More Dangerous Than the Old, Alan Dershowitz—#1 New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—warns of the danger to the future of civil liberties and equality in America. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek . War on Woke exposes new McCarthyite tendencies and tactics of academia, the media, and the business community, especially high tech, that promote closed-minded intolerance. Dershowitz explains that the new woke McCarthyism challenges the basic tenets of the classic liberal (in the traditional sense) state: Freedom of expression; due process; presumption of innocence, right to counsel, equal application of the law; tolerance and respect for differing viewpoints, and that these bedrock principles are rejected by McCarthyite extremists on both the hard left and the hard right. Analyzing the impact of this new woke McCarthyism through the relentless attempts to “get” Trump, the attention on the Bidens, and even its international manifestation relative to anti-Semitism, Israel, and the world, Dershowitz investigates the role of media and asks whether the US Supreme Court can constrain this growing threat as new woke McCarthyism becomes mainstream Americanism—especially as the current generation of students and young professionals become our political, media, business, educational, religious, and “influencer” leaders.

A Washington Post Notable Work of Nonfiction From the moment Chief Justice Roberts botched Barack Obama's oath of office, the relationship between the Court and the White House has been a fraught one. Grappling with issues as diverse as campaign finance, abortion, and the right to bear arms, the Roberts court has put itself squarely at the center of American political life. Jeffrey Toobin brilliantly portrays key personalities and cases and shows how the President was fatally slow to realize the importance of the judicial branch to his agenda. Combining incisive legal analysis with riveting insider details, The Oath is an essential guide to understanding the Supreme Court of our interesting times.

A landmark dissenting opinion arguing against the death penalty. Does the death penalty violate the Constitution? In Against the Death Penalty , Justice Stephen Breyer argues that it does; that it is carried out unfairly and inconsistently and, thus, violates the ban on ""cruel and unusual punishments"" specified by the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution. Today’s administration of the death penalty,” Breyer writes, involves three fundamental constitutional defects: (1) serious unreliability, (2) arbitrariness in application, and (3) unconscionably long delays that undermine the death penalty’s penological purpose. Perhaps as a result, (4) most places within the United States have abandoned its use.” This volume contains Breyer's dissent in the case of Glossip v. Gross , which involved an unsuccessful challenge to Oklahoma's use of a lethal-injection drug because it might cause severe pain. Justice Breyer's legal citations have been edited to make them understandable to a general audience, but the text retains the full force of his powerful argument that the time has come for the Supreme Court to revisit the constitutionality of the death penalty. Breyer was joined in his dissent from the bench by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Their passionate argument has been cited by many legal experts including fellow Justice Antonin Scalia as signaling an eventual Court ruling striking down the death penalty. A similar dissent in 1963 by Breyer's mentor, Justice Arthur J. Goldberg, helped set the stage for a later ruling, imposing what turned out to be a four-year moratorium on executions.

This is the Large Print Edition of I Dissent in paperback. From Dred Scott to Lawrence v. Texas and more, the most famous Supreme Court dissents, collected in one volume for the first time. For the first time, a collection of dissents from the most famous Supreme Court cases. If American history can truly be traced through the majority decisions in landmark Supreme Court cases, then what about the dissenting opinions? In issues of race, gender, privacy, workers' rights, and more, would advances have been impeded or failures rectified if the dissenting opinions were in fact the majority opinions? In offering thirteen famous dissents-from Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. Board of Education to Griswold v. Connecticut and Lawrence v. Texas, each edited with the judges' eloquence preserved-renowned Supreme Court scholar Mark Tushnet reminds us that court decisions are not pronouncements issued by the utterly objective, they are in fact political statements from highly intelligent but partisan people. Tushnet introduces readers to the very concept of dissent in the courts and then provides useful context for each case, filling in gaps in the Court's history and providing an overview of the issues at stake. After each case, he considers the impact the dissenting opinion would have had, if it had been the majority decision. Lively and accessible, I Dissent offers a radically fresh view of the judiciary in a collection that is essential reading for anyone interested in American history.

The little understood yet volcanic power of impeachment lodged in the Congress is dissected through history by the nation's leading legal scholar on the subject. Berger offers authoritative insight into "high crimes and misdemeanors." He sheds new light on whether impeachment is limited to indictable crimes, on whether there is jurisdiction to impeach for misconduct outside of office, and on whether impeachment must precede indictment. In an addition to the book, Berger finds firm footing in contesting the views of one-time Judge Robert Bork and President Nixon's lawyer, James St. Clair.

2016 Reprint of 1961 Edition. Full facsimile of the original edition, not reproduced with Optical Recognition Software. Although the Muslims are for the most part imbued with enthusiasm for the idea of a truly Islamic state - that is, a state based not on the concepts of nationality and race but solely on the ideology of the Qur'an and Sunnah, they have as yet not realized a concrete vision of this form of government embodying a distinctly Islamic character. The very fact that none of the existing Muslim countries has so far achieved a form of government that could be termed genuinely Islamic, makes a discussion of the principle which ought to underlie the constitution of Islamic state imperative. By surveying nearly fourteen hundred years-beginning with the "Hijra", the formal origin of the Islamic calendar-this book demonstrates how manifold forms of the Islamic state may emerge from Islamic foundations, and how, essentially, any state that emerges, to be truly Islamic, must incorporate the doctrine of government by consent and counsel.

“Illuminating.” —Phil Zuckerman, author of Living the Secular Life If the First Amendment protects the separation of church and state, why have atheists had to fight for their rights? In this valuable work, R. Laurence Moore and Isaac Kramnick reveal the fascinating history of atheism in America and the legal challenges to federal and state laws that made atheists second-class citizens.

No detailed description available for "Mr. Justice Holmes and the Supreme Court".