You searched for:

24 entries
Refine search
Browser-rss

Search Results:

Number
Remove Star
Title
Format
Year
Location & Availability
Call #
1.

Executive Privilege and Delegation of Powers [electronic resource]

Loading...
Examines the executive branch of government and its relationship to the legislative branch. Concludes that the framers of the Constitution were successful in protecting their democratic form of government by formulating this balance of power. To illustrate the balance of power, utilizes a hypothetical case centering on congressional attempts to review records of conversations between the President and his secretary of energy. Congresswoman Barbara Mikulski, former President Gerald Ford, and Watergate prosecutor, Archibald Cox, bring first-hand experience to this topic.
Online
1984
2.

War Powers and Covert Action [electronic resource]

Loading...
Examines how the President and Congress work together in war time and times of undercover activity, utilizing a hypothetical case involving the War Powers Resolution to explore whether the Consitution has, or has ever had, relevance in the implementation of foreign policy. Presented by former President Gerald Ford, the Honorable Edmund Muskie, and journalist Tom Wicker.
Online
1984
3.

Nomination, Election and Succession of the President [electronic resource]

Loading...
Explains the process by which a president is elected in the United States, from the role of political parties in nominating the President, the flexibility of the Electoral College when no candidate is clearly electable, and the governmental mechanisms set into motion when the President becomes disabled.
Online
1984
4.

Criminal Justice and a Defendant's Right to a Fair Trial [electronic resource]

Loading...
Examines the criminal justice system from a legal and social perspective. The seminar format features several attorneys who focus on legal ethics in their discussions of the right of the accused to a fair trial versus the right of society to take measures to assure public safety. Should a lawyer defend a guilty person? This and other questions are debated by Bronx district attorney, Mario Merola; New York mayor, Edward Koch; Dan Rather and others.
Online
1984
5.

Crime and Insanity [electronic resource]

Loading...
Utilizes a hypothetical political assassination as a vehicle for exploring the insanity defense and the controversy surrounding psychiatric testimony in the courtroom. Is psychiatric evaluation precise enough to be allowed as testimony in a court of law? U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Irving Kaufman; Hastings Center President Willard Gaylin, and others discuss the issues.
Online
1984
6.

Crime and Punishments [electronic resource]

Loading...
Examines questions about sentencing, what constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the purpose of prison, and the debate over the death penalty. U.S. Court of Appeals Judge Arthur Alarcon, Federal Bureau of Prisons Director, Norman Carson; government leaders, civil libertarians and journalists discuss the issues.
Online
1984
7.

Campaign Spending [electronic resource]: Money and Media

Loading...
Should government regulate the electoral process? Do limits on campaign spending infringe on First Amendment rights? The episode reviews recent attempts to reform campaign financing and the increasing importance of the media as areas where regulation might be appropriate. Political consultant David Garth; Washington Post columnist, David Broder, Bill Moyers and other debate the issues.
Online
1984
8.

National Security and Freedom of the Press [electronic resource]

Loading...
Explores the issue of national security in relation to freedom of the press, utilizing discussion between former CIA Director James Schlesinger and journalists Brit Hume and Dan Rather as they explore the question of whether the Constitution grants the American public a "right to know."
Online
1984
9.

School Prayer, Gun Control and the Right to Assemble [electronic resource]

Loading...
Supposes a hypothetical small town beset by First and Second Amendment controversies and examines the courts' role in determining policy on the sensitive issues of prayer in the schools, gun control, or, the right to bear arms, and the right to assemble. The issues are debated by Griffin Bell, former secretary of education Shirley Hufstedler, and civil liberties counsel, Jeanne Baker.
Online
1984
10.

Right to Live, Right to Die [electronic resource]

Loading...
Presents a discussion among judges, doctors and congressional representatives concerning personal freedoms and privacy as balanced against state intervention and societal rights. Touches on the topic of abortion, "Baby Doc" cases and the right to die. The issues are debated by Gloria Steinem, Joseph Califano, Rep. Henry Hyde, Phil Donahue, and others.
Online
1984
11.

Immigration Reform [electronic resource]

Loading...
Examines criteria for admitting foreigners into the United States, employers' responsibilities in hiring undocumented persons, and the rights of legal and illegal immigrants. The issues are debated by U.S. Court of Appeals Judge, Arlin Adams; Notre Dame President Rev. Theodore Hesburgh and immigration officials and journalists.
Online
1984
12.

Affirmative Action Versus Reverse Discrimination [electronic resource]

Loading...
Explores how contemporary society has attempted to redress discriminatory practices with affirmative action programs. Are quotas based on sex or race unconstitutional? Participants include Ellen Goodman, former EEOC chair, Eleanor Holmes Norton; Washington Post columnist William Raspberry and United Federation of Teachers President, Albert Shanker.
Online
1984
13.

Federalism [electronic resource]: The National Government Versus the States

Loading...
Discusses the balance of power between the federal government and state governments. Considers a hypothetical situation in which a newly elected President has promised that fundamental reforms in American education will be implemented on the federal level. In this instance, can the states can be forced to accept federal standards for education? Features Senators Orrin Hatch and Daniel Moynihan and Columbia University professor, Diane Ravitch.
Online
1984
14.

Do Unto Others [electronic resource]

Loading...
A panel including Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, Faye Wattleton of Planned Parenthood, and Willard Gaylin of the Hastings Center, explore the question: How much do we as individuals owe to other members of our communities? They respond to a variety of hypothetical situations such as sounds of distress from a battered woman and child, a homeless woman living outside your apartment, and a man who is unfaithful to his wife and possibly risks exposing her to AIDS.
Online
1989
15.

To Defend a Killer [electronic resource]

Loading...
A panel of American jurists and a philosopher discuss the ethics of criminal justice. The panelists discuss whether lawyers should defend people whom they they know to be guilty and how aggressive should the defense be. They also discuss where to draw the line when it comes to citizens taking matters into their own hands, deterrence versus rehabilitation, and society's right to retribution. Includes commentary by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, defense attorney Jack Litman, and philosopher John Smith of Yale.
Online
1989
16.

Public Trust, Private Interests [electronic resource]

Loading...
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joseph A. Califano Jr., Senator Alan Simpson, Peter Jennings and others address the problems of trust--within government, between one public official and another and between the government and the public. The panelists are asked to consider the hypothetical case of a man whose career starts in the administrative branch and moves on to a position as a senator. When he has troubles early in his career who stands by him and what does he owe his superiors? When he casts votes in Congess, is he the servant of the people or of his conscience?
Online
1989
17.

Does Doctor Know Best? [electronic resource]

Loading...
A panel of medical experts discuss the ethics of doctor-patient relationships. Using the case of a young woman diagnosed as having cancer who subsequently becomes pregnant, the panelists discuss how much the patient should be told, who is in charge of selecting medical treatment, and whether doctors should allow their patients to commit suicide. Doctors from the National Cancer Institute and Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center discuss controversies created by modern medicine with C. Everett Koop, journalist Ellen Goodman, and others.
Online
1989
18.

Anatomy of a Corporate Takeover [electronic resource]

Loading...
In Program 5, a panel of prominent Americans in the fields of business, law, and economics discuss ethics as they relate to corporate takeovers. They consider what responsibility is owed to shareholders, investors, employees, consumers, and the public, and whether there should be a sense of fairness in the corporate world. Debating the issues are T. Boone Pickens; chief executives from Borg-Warner, Goodyear, and Berkshire Hathaway; economist Lester Thurow; and Senator Tim Wirth.
Online
1989
19.

Under Orders, Under Fire: 1 [electronic resource]

Loading...
The My Lai incident is debated by generals and chaplains who raise issues of confidentiality between soldiers and their religious confessors, and the issue of military justice itself. Generals William Westmoreland, David Jones, and Brent Scowcroft, correspondents Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace, and others, considers whether a soldier has the duty to follow orders no matter what and the course of action that is demanded by loyalty to one's country if you are the commander of a platoon under enemy fire and a soldier is trying to desert.
Online
1989
20.

Under Orders, Under Fire: 2 [electronic resource]

Loading...
Generals debate the clash between military tribunals and the right of confidentiality with Chaplain Timothy Tatum of the U.S. Army War College, the Reverend J. Bryan Hehir of the U.S. Catholic Conference, and others. In this discussion of the ethics of confidentiality, each panelist is asked to respond to the following situation: A chaplain hears a soldier's confession that the soldier was involved in a military atrocity. Is the chaplain required to keep this confidence? Or do the interests of military justice take precedence?
Online
1989