Bøger af Henry Mark Holzer

"MY WIFE IS DEAD." That's what Santa Fe surgeon Dr. Robert Roybal managed to tell the 911 operator. When the sheriff and district attorney responded to the call, the doctor said he would speak only to New York criminal defense lawyer Jon Willard. Because of their past relationship, within twelve hours Willard was sitting across from Roybal in Santa Fe. He listened to the physician's anguished story of his wife's battle with terminal bilateral ovarian cancer, and of her death the night before. After carefully reviewing the facts, the district attorney declined to prosecute. But politicians with their own agenda overruled him. Willard's nemesis, the new attorney general, indicts Dr. Robert Roybal for the first-degree murder of his wife. For several reasons-especially because Willard fervently believes in the right to die with dignity and without pain-the lawyer agrees to defend Roybal. The media quickly calls it "the Mercy Killing Case." But will there be mercy for Willard's client-or for himself? As the right-to-die case ignites into a blazing public controversy, not only will Jon Willard's reputation be at risk. So will his own life . . . Don't miss these previous suspenseful courtroom novels in the Jon Willard series: Book 1: THE PALADIN CURSE by Erika and Henry Mark Holzer Book 2: A FOOL FOR A CLIENT by Henry Mark Holzer Book 3: JUSTICE DELAYED, IS JUSTICE DENIED by Henry Mark Holzer Book 4: ABUSE OF POWER by Henry Mark Holzer And don't miss Erika Holzer's previous bestselling novels, also available on Amazon: Freedom Bridge -- a gripping Cold War spy thriller, chosen as a Literary Guild featured selection, and . . . Eye for an Eye -- a white-knuckle vigilante crime thriller, which became a major motion picture starring Sally Field, Kiefer Sutherland, and Ed Harris.

"The American Constitution and Ayn Rand's 'Inner Contradiction'" has been written for two reasons. First, to provide patriotic Americans with an overview of the Constitution's most important provisions as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. At the same time, I want to demonstrate something unknown to virtually all Americans: that foundational to every political, social, economic, and legal system are ethical principles, and that from our nation's earliest days to the present there has been an ethical leitmotif running through the Supreme Court's most important decisions affecting individual rights and limited government. Not all their decisions, but many-and some of the most important ones. Like many other Americans, for years I've been deeply concerned about our nation's future. My fears have been exacerbated in the past three years because of the often lawless, anti-American, recklessly incompetent reign of Barack Obama. Worse, his presidency will continue for another year. Even worse, he might be reelected. In light of that possibility, consider a recent report in The Weekly Standard of a survey commissioned by the American Revolution Center, which found that nearly 83 percent of Americans failed a simple test of knowledge about the founding of the United States of America. Many of our fellow citizens believe that the founding principles of this nation are passé, that the Declaration of Independence's ringing endorsement of republican institutions, individual rights, and limited government is outdated, that the Constitution's creation of a representative republic belongs to a time gone by, and that the Bill of Rights is not a restraint on government but rather a source of newly found, invented "rights." Along with this woeful ignorance, and largely because of it, the Constitution of the United States of America and the Bill of Rights-rooted in republican institutions, individual rights and limited government-are under an unprecedented attack by Barack Obama and his far left Democratic Party, aided and abetted by the complicit mainstream media, unions, academia, and entertainment industry. To say nothing of many courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States in more than a few cases. Employing and legitimizing the exercise of statist power, the Supreme Court of the United States has facilitated state legislatures and Congress in their sacrifice of individual rights to the common good, and made a mockery of the Founders' creation of a limited government. But with a few notable exceptions there is hardly any knowledgeable, explicit and principled defense of our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be found anywhere. Not on radio, television, or in Hollywood. Not in the press. Not at the grassroots. Certainly not in academia. Nor, sadly, emanating from many Republicans, Conservatives, and Libertarians. Most of the media's pontificating so-called constitutional experts, especially those on national television, usually do more harm than good because they spread disinformation that is neither knowledgeable nor principled. And note, for example, the Republican presidential candidates' pitiful and embarrassing "debates." While many Tea Party activists and other patriots have been valiantly fighting for core constitutional values, many of them are disarmed because they've been taught little about American constitutional law. In order to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, everyone fighting for America today needs to know much more about these two documents than most of them know. Those who are committed to fighting for America's future are obligated to acquire at least a basic understanding of the Constitution's origins and birth, its written text, the manner in which it has been deliberately violated, and the consequences of how it has been deliberately misinterpreted by its enemies.

In his twenty terms as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Clarence Thomas has written nearly 450 opinions. This analysis of Thomas's most important majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions offers laypersons and legal professionals alike the opportunity to understand in his own words Thomas's approach to constitutional decision-making and his understanding of the most important provisions of the Constitution.