That is to say, is the aim of the project to elucidate socio-politico-legal issues already under discussion as "current events"?... or is it aimed at investigating issues/angles that might be relevant to current events?
The former seems to be easily culled from headlines... state power to act on immigration issues, congressional vs. judicial power regarding campaign finance (citizens united vs. the ability of simple legislation to overrule the power of the judgement that money is speech), voter suppression laws by states and other consequences of the supreme court repeal of portions of the voting rights act of 1964, gun control laws (is there some appropriate second amendment limitation similar to the "fire!" limitation of the first amendment?), etc.
The latter seems to be potentially more interesting, though a stretch if the book is on current events on issues.
Does Congress have the power (assuming it mustered the courage) to use the "public ownership of the airwaves", the basis for the FCC's placing limitations on profanity, to insist that broadcasters give some "reasonable" amount of airtime to each and every "serious" candidate in every market as a condition of those broadcasters keeping their licenses for whatever airwaves they're licensed to otherwise use? (No need to repeal Citizens United, if the use of the airwaves is defined in such a way as to be guaranteed to be relatively equal, and if corporate money used to purchase ads favoring some candidate would legally require that a like amount of time be provided to all other candidates for free...) Campaign financing would need a lot less reform if this radical measure passed.
Are there grounds for bringing a lawsuit against the government in its entirety over gerrymandering and insisting that the congressional districts be drawn up in geographically "sane" shapes so as to limit the capacity for future abuses? Give voters at least a chance at representation.
Are there grounds for bringing suit against the federal, as well as all state governments, for violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment for the treatment of corporations which are, on one hand, judged to have the rights of "people", while on the other hand they are not held equally accountable and incarcerated for their crimes, but only fined? Ought some judgment to be sought to ameliorate this un-equal protection by either insisting that corporations be stripped of their "personhood" rights, or that, conversely, they (or their officers as agents thereof) should be incarcerated for any wrongdoing, the same as would have occurred had an individual, for example, killed several workers as a result of malfeasance? Force the corporate officers to behave like people again, or face the consequences (or just end special considerations for corporate entities).
And, just for a quick last one, shouldn't stock market traders be charged a per-transaction fee the same way that taxi drivers and limousine companies are charged a per-pickup fee for picking up passengers at an airport? Why is one form of "work" less regulated &/or taxed to pay for its own regulation, than another?
I'd mention something about climate change, but the information on that is just so overwhelming that more information won't help... that's an issue of willful denial that just needs to be overrun by popular demand, once there's enough popular demand.
= new reply since forum marked as read
