E. Thomas Sullivan

In The U. S. Presidency, E. Thomas Sullivan and Richard W. Painter examine the evolving state of presidential power in the United States, specifically facilitating discussion and debate concerning the power, responsibility, and accountability of U. S. Presidents. How is power acquired? How is it used or misused? How are the President's powers checked and how are they held accountable to and by the people? Rather than promote a single theory of presidential power, Sullivan and Painter answer these questions with a wide range of arguments for and against power in a broad number of circumstances and Supreme Court holdings. Grounded in the intersection of law, politics, and history, this book engages readers across disciplines, helping them understand the remarkable transformation of the United States presidency. Objective and timely, The U. S. Presidency makes a case for a democratic model of self-government centered on accountability and the rule of law.

In The U. S. Presidency, E. Thomas Sullivan and Richard W. Painter examine the evolving state of presidential power in the United States, specifically facilitating discussion and debate concerning the power, responsibility, and accountability of U. S. Presidents. How is power acquired? How is it used or misused? How are the President's powers checked and how are they held accountable to and by the people? Rather than promote a single theory of presidential power, Sullivan and Painter answer these questions with a wide range of arguments for and against power in a broad number of circumstances and Supreme Court holdings. Grounded in the intersection of law, politics, and history, this book engages readers across disciplines, helping them understand the remarkable transformation of the United States presidency. Objective and timely, The U. S. Presidency makes a case for a democratic model of self-government centered on accountability and the rule of law.

Why do we protect free speech? What values does it serve? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment? What has the Court gotten right and wrong? Why are current debates over free expression often so divisive? How can we do better? In this succinct but comprehensive and scholarly book, authors Len Niehoff and Thomas Sullivan tackle these pressing questions. Free Speech: From Core Values to Current Debates traces the development and evolution of the free speech doctrine in the Supreme Court and explores how the Court - with varying levels of success - has applied that doctrinal framework to “hard cases” and current controversies, such as those involving hate speech, speech on the internet, speech on campus, and campaign finance regulation. This is the perfect volume for anyone - student, general reader, or scholar - looking for an accessible overview of this critical topic.

Why do we protect free speech? What values does it serve? How has the Supreme Court interpreted the First Amendment? What has the Court gotten right and wrong? Why are current debates over free expression often so divisive? How can we do better? In this succinct but comprehensive and scholarly book, authors Len Niehoff and Thomas Sullivan tackle these pressing questions. Free Speech: From Core Values to Current Debates traces the development and evolution of the free speech doctrine in the Supreme Court and explores how the Court - with varying levels of success - has applied that doctrinal framework to “hard cases” and current controversies, such as those involving hate speech, speech on the internet, speech on campus, and campaign finance regulation. This is the perfect volume for anyone - student, general reader, or scholar - looking for an accessible overview of this critical topic.

Topics such as military tribunals, same-sex marriage, informative privacy, reproductive rights, affirmative action, and states' rights fill the landscape of contemporary legal debate and media discussion, and they all fall under the umbrella of the Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution. However, what is not always fully understood is the constitutional basis of these rights, or the exact list of due process rights as they have evolved over time through judicial interpretation. In The Arc of Due Process in American Constitutional Law, Sullivan and Massaro describe the intricate history of what are currently considered due process rights, and maintain that modern constitutional theory and practice must adhere to it. The authors focus on the origins and contemporary uses of due process principles in American constitutional law, while offering an overarching description of the factors or normative concepts that allow courts to invalidate a government action on the grounds of due process. They also analyze judicial interpretations and expressions as a key manner and perhaps the most powerful source of how due process has taken form in the United States. In the process of charting this arc, the authors describe the judicial analysis of rights within each category applying an illustrative list, and identify several fundamental norms that span these disparate threads of due process and the most salient principles that animate due process doctrine.

From the ancient origins of Just War doctrine to contemporary theories of punishment, concepts of proportionality have long been an instrumental part of the rule of law and an essential check on government power. The American legal system, despite frequent, though unacknowledged, use of proportionality principles, has not developed a general theory of proportionality. In Proportionality Principles in American Law, two renowned legal scholars seek to advance such a theory. They argue that standards of review should be more clearly and precisely defined, and that in most circumstances every intrusive government measure which limits or threatens individual rights should undergo some degree of proportionality review. Surveying the longstanding use of proportionality principles as well as examples from foreign and international law, E. Thomas Sullivan and Richard Frase identify three basic ways that government measures and private remedies have been found to be disproportionate: relative to fault; relative to alternative means of achieving the same practical purposes; and relative to the likely practical benefits of the measure or remedy. Using this framework, the book examines the origins and contemporary uses of proportionality principles in public law, civil liberties, and the criminal justice system, emphasizing the utility of proportionality principles to guide judicial review of excessive government measures. Seeking to categorize and harmonize a variety of judicial review standards and their underlying proportionality concepts, Proportionality Principles in American Law will help lawyers, judges, and legislators more consistently, and more effectively, apply proportionality principles and thus help American courts better serve their vital roles as guardians of individual rights and liberties.