The idea that the three branches of U.S. government are equal in power is taught in classrooms, proclaimed by politicians, and referenced in the media. But, as David Siemers shows, that idea is a myth, neither intended by the Founders nor true in practice. Siemers explains how adherence to this myth normalizes a politics of gridlock, in which the action of any branch can be checked by the reaction of any other. The Founders, however, envisioned a separation of functions rather than a separation of powers. Siemers argues that this view needs to replace our current view, so that the goals set out in the Constitution’s Preamble may be better achieved.

Demonstrates that the presidential claim of authority to withhold information is without historical or constitutional foundation.

The Court’s decisions are interpreted and disseminated via the media. During this process, the media paints an image of the Court and its business. Like any artist, the media has license regarding what to cover and the amount of attention devoted to any aspect of the Court and its business. Some cases receive tremendous attention, while others languish on the back pages or are ignored. These selection effects create a skewed picture of the Court and its work, and might affect public attitudes toward the Court. Indeed, studies of media coverage of other governmental institutions reveal that when, and how, their policy decisions are covered has implications for the public’s understanding of, compliance with, support for, and cynicism about the policy. This book uncovers and describes this coverage and compares it to the confirmation hearings, the Court’s actual work, even its members. Rorie Spill Solberg and Eric N. Waltenburg analyze media coverage of nominations and confirmation hearings, the justices’ "extra-curricular" activities and their retirements/deaths, and the Court’s opinions, and compare this coverage to analyses of confirmation transcripts and the Court’s full docket. Solberg and Waltenburg contend that media now cover the Court and its personnel more similarly to its coverage of other political institutions. Journalists still regurgitate a mythology supported by the justices, a "cult of the robe," wherein unbiased and apolitical judges mechanically base their decisions upon the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, they argue the media also focus on the "cult of personality," wherein the media emphasize certain attributes of the justices and their work to match the public’s preferences for subject matter and content. The media’s portrayal, then, may undercut the Court’s legitimacy and its reservoir of good will.

The idea that a radical transformation of the Presidency took place during the FDR administration has become one of the most widely accepted tenets of contemporary scholarship. According to this view, the Constitutional Presidency was a product of the Founders' fear of arbitrary power. Only with the development of a popular extra-Constitutional Presidency did the powerful "modern Presidency" emerge. David K. Nichols argues to the contrary that the "modern Presidency" was not created by FDR. What happened during FDR's administration was a transformation in the size and scope of the national government, rather than a transformation of the Presidency in its relations to the Constitution or the other branches of government. Nichols demonstrates that the essential elements of the modern Presidency have been found throughout our history, although often less obvious in an era where the functions of the national government as a whole were restricted. Claiming that we have failed to fully appreciate the character of the Constitutional Presidency, Nichols shows that the potential for the modern Presidency was created in the Constitution itself. He analyzes three essential aspects of the modern Presidency--the President's role in the budgetary process, the President's role as chief executive, and the War Powers Act--that are logical outgrowths of the decisions made at the Constitutional Convention. Nichols concludes that it is the authors of the American Constitution, not the English or European philosophers, who provide the most satisfactory reconciliation of executive power and limited popular government. It is the authors of the Constitution who created the modern Presidency.

Progressives in Washington have big plans. Plans to take over every part of the U.S. economy and manage Americans' lives. Embracing the Green New Deal, abolishing the electoral college, promoting late term abortion, and implementing socialism are just a few of the progressives' latest attempts to remake America. In the process, they abandon the Constitution and our individual liberties. Congressman Ken Buck argues that every American should rediscover our nation's unique freedom story. This book tells the story of how our nation’s founders carefully designed a political system that would guard against tyranny and protect individual liberty. Using the Capitol and its features as the backdrop, Buck shows how our heritage as a free people is woven into every institution in America, and how progressives are attempting to undermine individual liberty. The book offers clear recommendations for steps liberty-minded Americans can take to reverse the progressives’ damaging course. For all who are willing to listen, the Capitol speaks, showing how conservatives can halt the progressives' plans, preserve our remaining freedoms, and reclaim what we’ve lost.

The Judicial System: A Reference Handbook provides an authoritative and accessible one-stop resource for understanding the U.S. judicial system and its place in the fabric of American government and society. The American judicial system plays a central role in setting and enforcing the legal rules under which the people of the United States live. U.S. courts and laws, though, are complex and often criticized for bias and other alleged shortcomings, The U.S. Supreme Court has emerged as a particular focal point of political partisanship and controversy, both in terms of the legal decisions it hands down and the makeup of its membership. Like other books in the Contemporary World Issues series, this volume comprises seven chapters. Chapter 1 presents the origins, development, and current characteristics of the American judicial system. Chapter 2 discusses problems and controversies orbiting around the U.S. justice system today. Chapter 3 features a wide-ranging collection of essays that examine and illuminate various aspects of the judicial system. Chapter 4 profiles influential organizations and people related to the justice system, and Chapter 5 offers relevant data and documents about U.S. courts. Chapter 6 is composed of an annotated list of important resources, while Chapter 7 offers a useful chronology of events.

Chief Justice John Marshall argued that a constitution "requires that only its great outlines should be marked [and] its important objects designated." Ours is "intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs." In recent years, Marshall's great truths have been challenged by proponents of originalism and strict construction. Such legal thinkers as Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia argue that the Constitution must be construed and applied as it was when the Framers wrote it. In Keeping Faith with the Constitution, three legal authorities make the case for Marshall's vision. They describe their approach as "constitutional fidelity"--not to how the Framers would have applied the Constitution, but to the text and principles of the Constitution itself. The original understanding of the text is one source of interpretation, but not the only one; to preserve the meaning and authority of the document, to keep it vital, applications of the Constitution must be shaped by precedent, historical experience, practical consequence, and societal change. The authors range across the history of constitutional interpretation to show how this approach has been the source of our greatest advances, from Brown v. Board of Education to the New Deal, from the Miranda decision to the expansion of women's rights. They delve into the complexities of voting rights, the malapportionment of legislative districts, speech freedoms, civil liberties and the War on Terror, and the evolution of checks and balances. The Constitution's framers could never have imagined DNA, global warming, or even women's equality. Yet these and many more realities shape our lives and outlook. Our Constitution will remain vital into our changing future, the authors write, if judges remain true to this rich tradition of adaptation and fidelity.