The Fifth Edition of American Politics Today is designed to show students the reality of politics today and how it connects to their own lives. New features-from chapter opening cases that address the kinds of questions students ask, to full-page graphics that illustrate key political processes-show students how politics works and why it matters. All components of the learning package-textbook, InQuizitive adaptive learning tool, and coursepack-are organized around specific chapter learning goals to ensure that students learn the nuts and bolts of American government.

Just two weeks after winning reelection to his ninth term in Congress, Steve King was stunned to learn the “Swamp” was poised to unleash a treacherous media blitzkrieg designed to kill his Congressional political career on the spot. The words, “They believe they can force you to resign” ring in his ears yet today. He knew Democrats and the media would pile on. Unfortunately, the threat was from within his party and it was far more dangerous. The Republican establishment, RINOs, elitists, globalists, and NeverTrumpers needed him out of the way. This is the full story.

'This collection is a timely survey of the role of constitutional courts in comparative perspective - it provides an excellent summary of developments in a range of jurisdictions, and locates them in a broader social and political context. Among other factors, it considers global trends toward increasing international and regional human rights protection, increased recognition of second and third generation rights, and trends toward decentralization in democratic governance. It is bound to be of broad interest to both comparative constitutional lawyers and scholars.' - Rosalind Dixon, University of New South Wales, Australia Constitutional review has become an essential feature of modern liberal democratic constitutionalism. In particular, constitutional review in the context of rights litigation has proved to be most challenging for the courts. By offering in-depth analyses on changes affecting constitutional design and constitutional adjudication, while also engaging with general theories of comparative constitutionalism, this book seeks to provide a heightened understanding of the constitutional and political responses to the issue of adaptability and endurance of rights-based constitutional review. These original contributions, written by an array of distinguished experts and illustrated by the most up-to-date case law, cover Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and the United States, and include constitutional systems that are not commonly studied in comparative constitutional studies. Providing structured analyses, the editors combine studies of common law and civil law jurisdictions, centralized and decentralized systems of constitutional review, and large and small jurisdictions. This multi-jurisdictional study will appeal to members of the judiciary, policy-makers and practitioners looking for valuable insights into the case law of a range of constitutional and supreme courts in this rapidly expanding field of constitutional adjudication. It also serves as an excellent resource for academics, scholars and advanced students in the fields of law, human rights and political science. Contributors: J. Bell, E. Carolan, C. Chandrachud, A. Kavanagh, C. Kelly, J. Lavapuro, T. Ojanen, M.-L. Paris, P. Passaglia, A.R. Robledo, M. Rosenfeld, M. Scheinin, J. Stellios, R. Uitz, M. Verdussen, M. Zagor

By reminding readers that early Supreme Court justices refused to reduce the Constitution to a mere legal document, Approaching the U.S. Constitution provides a definitive response to Reading Law by Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner. Turning to the vision of Alexander Hamilton found in Federalists No. 78, Hunter argues that rather than seeing the judiciary as America's legal guardian, Hamilton looked to independent individuals of integrity on the judiciary to be the nation's collective conscience. For Hamilton, the judiciary's authority over the legislature does not derive from positive law but is extra-legal by 'design' and is purely moral. By emphasizing the legal expertise of judges alone, individuals such as Justice Scalia mistakenly demand that judges exercise no human ethical judgment whatsoever. Yet the more this happens, the more the "rule of law" is replaced by the rule of lawyers. Legal sophistry becomes the primary currency wherewith society's ethical and moral questions are resolved. Moreover, the alleged neutrality of legal analysis is deceptive with its claims of judicial modesty. It is not only undemocratic, it is dictatorial and highly elitist. Public debate over questions of fairness is replaced by an exclusive legalistic debate between lawyers over what is legal. The more Scalia and Garner realize their agenda, the more all appeals to what is moral will be effectively removed from political debate. 'Conservatives' lament the 'removing God from the classroom,' by 'liberals,' yet if the advocates of legalism get their way, God will be effectively removed from the polis altogether. The answer to preserving both separation of powers and the American commitment to unalienable human rights is to view the Supreme Court in the same way early founders such as Hamilton did and in the way President Abraham Lincoln urged. The Court's most important function in exercising the power of judicial review is to serve as the nation's conscience just as it did in Brown v. Board of Education.