File No. 395

Centennial edition. Popularly known as the Constitution Annotated or "CONAN", encompasses the U.S. Constitution and analysis and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution with in-text annotations of cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. The analysis is provided by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) in the Library of Congress. This is the 100th anniversary edition of a publication first released in 1913 at the direction of the U.S. Senate. Since then, it has been published as a bound edition every 10 years, with updates issued every two years that address new constitutional law cases . Audience: Federal lawmakers, libraries, law firms, constitutional scholars.

American reluctance to join the International Criminal Court illuminates important trends in international security and a central dilemma facing U.S. Foreign policy in the 21st century. The ICC will prosecute individuals who commit egregious international human rights violations such as genocide. The Court is a logical culmination of the global trends toward expanding human rights and creating international institutions. The U.S., which fostered these trends because they served American national interests, initially championed the creation of an ICC. The Court fundamentally represents the triumph of American values in the international arena. Yet the United States now opposes the ICC for fear of constraints upon America's ability to use force to protect its national interests. The principal national security and constitutional objections to the Court, which the volume explores in detail, inflate the potential risks inherent in joining the ICC. More fundamentally, they reflect a belief in American exceptionalism that is unsustainable in today's world. Court opponents also underestimate the growing salience of international norms and institutions in addressing emerging threats to U.S. national interests. The misguided assessments that buttress opposition to the ICC threaten to undermine American leadership and security in the 21st century more gravely than could any international institution.

Contending for American Nationhood: Joseph Story and the Debate Over a Federal Common Law offers a study of one of the early republic’s fiercest legal debates, one of the Supreme Court’s most understudied jurists and constitutional theorists, and the enduring tension between two irreconcilable understandings of the American union. It explores the conflict between two competing theories of the American union in the early years of the republic: the Nationalist Theory, which posited that the union was the creation of the national American people, and the Compact Theory, which portrayed the union as a compact between the peoples of the several states who had each separately decided to join to form the union. Benjamin Clark employs this underlying debate as a framework for understanding the debate over federal common law in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. The book gives particular attention to the constitutional thought of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, examining how these two seemingly-separate issues—the federal common law question and the existence of American nationhood—came together in Story’s constitutional theory.

In an ere as morally confused as ours, Stoner argues, we at least ought to know what we've abandoned or suppressed in the name of judicial activism and the modern rights-oriented Constitution. Having lost our way, perhaps the common law, in its original sense, provides a way back, a viable alternative to the debilitating relativism of our current age.