Suchergebnisse

Clergy sex abuse, polygamy, children dying from faith healing, companies that refuse to do business with same-sex couples, and residential neighborhoods forced to host homeless shelters - what do all of these have in common? They are all examples of religious believers harming others and demanding religious liberty regardless of the harm. This book unmasks those responsible, explains how this new set of rights is not derived from the First Amendment and argues for a return to common-sense religious liberty. In straightforward, readable prose, God vs. the Gavel: The Perils of Extreme Religious Liberty sets the record straight about the United States' move toward extreme religious liberty. More than half of this thoroughly revised second edition is new content, featuring a new introduction and epilogue and contemporary stories. All Americans need to read this book, before they or their friends and family are harmed by religious believers exercising their newfound rights

We have failed our children -- What is wrong with the system? : the courthouse doors are closed to the survivors -- The solution is clear and simple : abolish the statutes of limitation for childhood sexual abuse -- What it will take to act on the lessons learned : what the states must do : what the federal government should do -- Barrier #1 : the insurance industry -- Barrier #2 : the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church -- The other barriers : the teachers, the defense attorneys, and an uninformed public -- The coming civil rights movement for children

The Supreme Court has issued a series of opinions that turn on the Constitution's inherent principles of federalism, decisions that have alarmed many a legal scholar. The Court has been attacked for overstepping its bounds &, by some, on the grounds that the federalism-state balance should be maintained through the political process rather than judicial review. This criticism of the judicial enforcement of federalism fails as a matter of constitutional history & on empirical grounds. The Supreme Court in this era deserves praise, not criticism, for its recent federalism jurisprudence. 30 References. Adapted from the source document.

Although many scholars have been in favor of providing first amendment protection for art, no one has offered a justification for its constitutional protection suited to art's singular capacities. Rather, commentators and courts have been inclined to place art under the rubric of general speech, which limits protection to ideas and content. Professor Hamilton argues that art offers significantly more than its content and deserves first amendment protection tailored to its particular potential. Art enables individuals to experience unfamiliar worlds and thereby to gain new perspectives on the prevailing status quo, including the government's. It performs this function without exposing the individual to the risks inherent in actually experiencing a foreign world view. Moreover, its subversive potential not only occurs at the moment artwork is experienced but also can be stored, making art a powerful and immanent tool of critique. Professor Hamilton concludes that governmental funding of art projects should be examined with the closest scrutiny, because governmental involvement in the art market skews the market away from works that defamiliarize. Finally, public funding of arts education and appreciation should be a high priority so that students can build a storehouse of reorientation experiences that will protect them against the bewitchment of common sense posed by official power.

According to Professor Hamilton, the TRIPS Agreement constructs international copyright law in the image of Western, Protestant-based capitalist copyright law. She suggests that the Agreement imposes presuppositions about human value, effort, and reward that contain political, sociological, and legal ramifications. In fact, the Agreement, with its focus upon valuing individual human creative achievement, could spur further developments in Western-based human rights in the rest of the world. By transplanting Western ideas to the rest of the world, TRIPS may actually encourage anti-authoritarian revolution. She further suggests that the TRIPS Agreement seeks to establish a free market of intellectual property goods. By establishing such a system, the Agreement could serve to standardize the world's politics. Professor Hamilton argues that the TRIPS Agreement is already outdated because it neglects to address that a great portion of the international intellectual property market will soon be on-line. She suggests that this critical omission could be used unfairly by publishers to restrict the free-flow of ideas as a means of profiting from their copyrights. The on-line era faces the difficult task of crafting an appropriate equivalent to the hard copy universe's free use zone. By restricting access to information and ideas through a global copyright law overly solicitous to publishers, the people's freedom from tyranny may be jeopardized. Although copyright should not be abandoned, it must be modified to fit an on-line universe.