John Paul Stevens

This study examines the contemporary questions surrounding the process by which the U.S. Constitution can be amended. Beginning with the description of the mechanism and history of the constitutional amending process in America, the work considers five major questions surrounding the amending process. The question of justiciability: whether the courts should have authority to settle amending issues or whether they are political questions beyond the court's purview. The question of standards: what standards of review should be used. The question of safety: whether this is cause to fear an Article V convention. The question of exclusivity: whether there are legal means of changing the Constitution short of Article V. And the question of limitations: whether there are any unstated constitutional limits on the amending process.

This two-volume collection draws together essays commissioned for the Hofstra University Presidential Conference on Gerald R. Ford. The essays and transcripts of panel discussions, prepared by academic political scientists and historians, as well as members of the Ford administration, are divided into sections devoted to such issues as the pardon of Richard Nixon, the Rockefeller vice-presidency, Middle East diplomacy, economic policy, and Ford's relations with the press. In a period when the Ford presidency is undergoing reevaluation, these essays will be of particular value.

Richard F. Hixson examines the various ways the United States Supreme Court - the individual justices as well as the collective body - has dealt over time with the intractable problem of obscenity. Hixson proceeds chronologically through eleven chapters, with each chapter featuring a specific aspect of the constitutional problem and the approach or solution espoused by a particular justice. Through his case-by-case analysis of the many Supreme Court obscenity rulings, Hixson relates each decision to the temper of the times. Omnipresent in this discussion, of course, is the United States Constitution, especially the First Amendment upon which the Court bases its decisions. What sets Pornography and the Justices apart from other studies of pornography is its unique focus and its fresh conclusion, which is a composite of views garnered from the Supreme Court justices. As long as the government does not discriminate against specific points of view and as long as there is ample protection of minors and nonconsenting adults, Hixson argues that the private collection of pornography is up to the individual. Hixson contends that the freedom to purchase obscene pornographic matter should be restricted only by time, place, and manner considerations. If a person wants pornography, he or she should be able to get it, albeit perhaps from a higher shelf, in a secluded room, or at a theater clearly marked for adults. Hixson sees no need to legislate personal morals beyond controlling public access.