Waged between 1926 and 1929, The Cristero War (also known as The Cristero Rebellion or La Cristiada) resulted from a religious insurrectionary movement, which formed in protest of the Mexican Revolution's anticlerical constitution of 1917. It was arguably the most violent and divisive episode in Mexican history between the 1910 Revolution itself and the ongoing 'Narco Wars'. Filling in major gaps in our understanding of the conflict, Mark Lawrence explores both combatant and civilian experiences in the centre-west Mexican state of Zacatecas and its borderlands. Lawrence shows that, despite the centrality of this key region, it has received little scholarly attention compared with other states, such as Jalisco or Michoacán, which saw similar levels of conflict. In providing a greater understanding of Zacatecas during The Cristero War, Lawrence not only works to even out a major historiographical bias, but he also sheds greater light on the contours of religious conflict and political dissent in early 20th-century Mexican history. In particular, he illustrates how the dynamics of local politics had fundamentally affected the way that a broader movement was embraced (and rejected) at a sub-national level. As such, he offers all historians, irrespective of geographic or temporal specialization, a reminder not to make sweeping assumptions about the everyday nature of compliance and resistance at the local level.

According to the US Constitution, if a bill is not returned to Congress by the president within ten days of receiving it and Congress has adjourned, the bill is effectively vetoed. The so-called pocket veto dates at least as far back as the presidency of James Madison (1808–1816), but the constitutionality of its use had not been considered by the Supreme Court until Okanogan Tribe et al. v. United States was decided in 1929, during the last year of Chief Justice Taft’s tenure. Despite responding to a situation in American Indian law, the Pocket Veto Case is notable for the fact that its final decision had nothing whatsoever to do with Indian law. The Okanogan Tribe is barely mentioned at all in the Court’s unanimous opinion, delivered by Justice Edward Sanford, which ultimately concluded that the pocket veto is a constitutional exercise of presidential authority. The Unusual Story of the Pocket Veto Case explores the underlying tension between congressional authority and the executive prerogative. Especially today, with such tension very much in evidence, it becomes all the more important to understand how and why the Constitution actually appears to encourage it. Studying Okanogan Tribe et al. v. United States and use of the pocket veto provides an excellent example of the tension between Congress and the president.

"Over his lifetime from 1894 to 1963, Aldous Huxley earned a reputation as one of the giants of modern English prose and of social commentary in our time. Best known for his novels, including Brave New World and Point Counter Point, Huxley was nonetheless very much at home in the essay form. Ranging from journalism to critical reviews to lierary, political, cultural, and philosophical reflections, these essays stand among the finest examples of the genre in modern literature. They also provide absorbing commentary on contmporary currents and events."--Page 2 of cover.