Explore the vast range of titles available.

For over seventy-five years Edward S. Corwin's text has been a basic reference in the study of U.S. Constitutional Law. The 14th edition, the first new edition since 1973, brings the volume up to date through 1977. In this classic work, historian Edward Corwin presented the text of the U.S. Constitution along with his own commentary on its articles, sections, clauses, and amendments. Corwin was a renowned authority on constitutional law and jurisprudence, and was hired at Princeton University by Woodrow Wilson in 1905. Far from being an impersonal textbook, Corwin's edition was full of opinion. Not afraid to express his own strong views of the development of American law, Corwin offered piquant descriptions of the debates about the meaning of clauses, placing recent decisions of the court \"in the familiar setting of his own views.\" The favor of his style is evident in his comments on judicial review (\"American democracy's way of covering its bet\") and the cabinet (\"an administrative anachronism\" that should be replaced by a legislative council \"whose daily salt does not come from the Presidential table\"). Corwin periodically revised the book for nearly forty years, incorporating into each new edition his views of new Supreme Court rulings and other changes in American law. Although Corwin intended his book for the general public, his interpretations always gained the attention of legal scholars and practitioners. The prefaces he wrote to the revised editions were often controversial for the views he offered on the latest developments of constitutional law, and the book only grew in stature and recognition. After his death in 1963, other scholars prepared subsequent editions, fourteen in all.

At a time when campaign finance reform is widely viewed as synonymous with cleaning up Washington and promoting political equality, Bradley Smith, a nationally recognized expert on campaign finance reform, argues that all restriction on campaign giving should be eliminated. InUnfree Speech, he presents a bold, convincing argument for the repeal of laws that regulate political spending and contributions, contending that they violate the right to free speech and ultimately diminish citizens' power. Smith demonstrates that these laws, which often force ordinary people making modest contributions of cash or labor to register with the Federal Election Commission or various state agencies, fail to accomplish their stated objectives. In fact, they have worked to entrench incumbents in office, deaden campaign discourse, burden grassroots political activity with needless regulation, and distance Americans from an increasingly professional, detached political class. Rather than attempting to plug \"loopholes\" in campaign finance law or instituting taxpayer-financed campaigns, Smith proposes a return to core First Amendment values of free speech and an unfettered right to engage in political activity. Smith finds that campaign contributions have little corrupting effect on the legislature and shows that an unrestrained system of contributions and spending actually enhances equality. More money, not less, is needed in the political system, Smith concludes.Unfree Speechdraws upon constitutional law and historical research to explain why campaign finance regulation is doomed and to illustrate the potentially drastic costs of efforts to make it succeed. Whatever one thinks about the impact of money on electoral politics, no one should take a final stand without reading Smith's controversial and important arguments.

The Occupy Wall Street movement was one of the largest grassroots political demonstrations in American history. The protests raised issues about government policies and social structures that sparked debate nationwide. Treatment of the demonstrators by public officials garnered scrutiny too, as did the tactics of the protestors, which some alleged included unlawful conduct.

Liberty of conscience, encompassing free speech, a free press, and freedom of religion, has a rich history in Anglo-American political thought, long predating the drafting of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution in 1789. The debate over licensing acts in seventeenth-century England; the advancement of principles of toleration by John Milton, Algernon Sidney, and John Locke in the same period; the renowned, impassioned, and highly influential essays of John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon in Cato’s Letters; the flourishing of a relatively free press and free church in eighteenth-century colonial America; and the liberty-championing assertions in the several declarations of rights in the newly independent states of America all played a critical role in shaping and inspiring the popular views in America that made the First Amendment possible.

Courts confronting First Amendment claims do not often scrutinize the severity of a speaker's punishment. Embracing a \"penalty-neutral\" understanding of the free-speech right, these courts tend to treat an individual's expression as either protected, in which case the government may not punish it at all, or unprotected, in which case the government may punish it to a very great degree. There is, however, a small but important body of \"penalty-sensitive\" case law that runs counter to the penalty-neutral norm. Within this case law, the severity of a speaker's punishment affects the merits of her First Amendment claim, thus giving rise to categories of expression that the government may punish, but only to a limited extent. This Article defends penalty-sensitive free- speech adjudication and calls for its expanded use within First Amendment law. Pulling together existing strands of penalty-sensitive doctrine, the Article identifies five ways in which penalty-sensitive analysis can further important constitutional objectives: (1) by increasing fairness for similarly-situated speakers; (2) by mitigating chilling effects on protected speech; (3) by facilitating the \"efficient breach\" of constitutionally borderline speech restrictions; (4) by rooting out improper government motives; and (5) by promoting transparency in judicial decision-making. The Article also considers and rejects potential objections to the penalty-sensitive approach, concluding that it will often generate proper results in difficult First Amendment cases. Adapted from the source document.

In Pickering v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court crafted a balancing test to determine whether a public employer violates the First Amendment when it retaliates against an employee who comments on matters that are relevant to the public. The Court added a threshold inquiry to this analysis in Garcetti v. Ceballos, in which it held that the First Amendment does not apply to statements made by public employees \"pursuant to their official duties.\" However, the Garcetti Court declined to address whether this additional consideration would apply to \"speech related to scholarship or teaching.\" Recently, in Evans-Marshall v. Board of Education, the Sixth Circuit applied Garcetti's \"pursuant to\" test in the education context and held that public officials' interference with a high school teacher's curricular decisions did not violate the First Amendment. Adapted from the source document.

Tamara R. Piety argues that increasingly expansive First Amendment protections for commercial speech imperil public health, safety, and welfare; the reliability of commercial and consumer information; the stability of financial markets; and the global environment. Using evidence from public relations and marketing, behavioral economics, psychology, and cognitive studies, she shows how overly permissive extensions of protections to commercial expression limit governmental power to address a broad range of public policy issues.

Perhaps the most ubiquitous of art forms, music accompanies daily activities from shopping to jogging. Music permeates modern society, and there is little question it constitutes an integral mode of expression. Despite recognition of music's worth, however, there is little explanation of music in First Amendment jurisprudence. A rationale for First Amendment protection begins with analysis of the particular medium of speech. Through a foray in musical aesthetics and the history of musical censorship, this Note discusses the role of music in political, societal, and individual experience. Music has had an important role in political events, from the fall of the Berlin Wall to 9/11. Often a collective experience, music integrates a group of performers with a group of listeners. Yet music is also essentially private; it develops individual experience and identity. Music functions in all these realms in different ways, so no single theory of free speech adequately explains protection for music. Instead, multiple theories are explored to fashion a comprehensive notion of music as a fully protected mode of expression, vital to First Amendment principles.

As the Internet continues to play a more central role in the daily lives of Americans, concerns about how Internet service providers manage their networks have arisen. Responding to these concerns and recognizing the importance of maintaining the open and competitive nature of the Internet, the FCC has taken incremental steps to regulate network management practices. Perhaps the most significant of these steps was its August 2008 Memorandum Decision and Order in which the FCC condemned Comcast Corporation's network management practices as \"discriminatory and arbitrary.\" In that Order, the FCC required that Comcast (1) adopt new practices that complied with federal Internet policy and (2) disclose the specifics to its customers and the FCC. Comcast responded by adopting a new practice and, in the alternative, filing an appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the FCC's authority to regulate network management practices.

Indecency regulation has been a hot political and social topic since Janet Jackson revealed her breast during the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show. The number of indecency complaints the FCC receives each year continues to rise. Moreover, to further complicate matters, in 2007 the Second Circuit overturned the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) policy that so-called \"fleeting expletives\" would be considered indecent. However, there has been no systematic review of the complaints from the perspective of the complainant. How has the FCC managed its increasing indecency complaint load, and what does it tell consumers who have taken the time to write formal complaints about what they perceive to be indecent programming? The authors obtained indecency complaints about broadcast programming received and denied by the FCC in 2004 through a Freedom of Information Act request. The nature of the complaint, geographic area, and FCC response were examined from the standpoint of the consumer. The authors make several suggestions to improve the FCC's handling of its increasing load of indecency complaints and its correspondence with the complainants. The authors also take a critical look at activist groups and their effect on the complaint process. Tables. Adapted from the source document.