Chemerinsky treatise is... Forum

[UWO-BADGPA]

Ok, so the TLS wisdom promotes this hornbook as gold, however I feel like its a little too much like a slightly condensed version of the case book. I understand people think its great, but I feel like I have to supplement this hornbook with another hornbook. Would you guys recommend the EE?

[Aeroplane]

People like Chemerinsky because Con Law cases are particularly annoying to extract rules from, and Chemerinsky helps because it concisely tells you the BLL & major policy implications of the major cases. If you understand the material your professor is teaching (with or without Chemerinsky), then you don't need another hornbook. If you are still confused, or if your professor has some quirky take on Con Law that Chemerinsky doesn't account for, then look for another source.

It sounds like you want a supplement that will provide you with some "new" information that's not in the casebook and I don't see why that would be helpful (IMO would be more likely to hurt you).

[Renzo]

What you are actually noticing is that Con Law sucks. Sadly, there's no getting around that.

[solidsnake]

..overrated. Listen to your prof and take excellent notes. Clear up any questions you have over office hours/email. Run hypos through old exams. Con Law is so rich with intellectual wealth, you might as well focus solely on getting your prof's take on it. The doctrine itself, like all of law, isn't challenging at all. But understanding the (often conflicting) principles that motivate it is -- and that's what makes it fun.

[BradyToMoss]

..overrated. Listen to your prof and take excellent notes. Clear up any questions you have over office hours/email. Run hypos through old exams. Con Law is so rich with intellectual wealth, you might as well focus solely on getting your prof's take on it. The doctrine itself, like all of law, isn't challenging at all. But understanding the (often conflicting) principles that motivate it is -- and that's what makes it fun.

Have to disagree with this. The way Chemerinsky presents the information is ideal for preparation for most conlaw exams. Provided your professor is not way out there, the supplement is the way to go.

[solidsnake]

..overrated. Listen to your prof and take excellent notes. Clear up any questions you have over office hours/email. Run hypos through old exams. Con Law is so rich with intellectual wealth, you might as well focus solely on getting your prof's take on it. The doctrine itself, like all of law, isn't challenging at all. But understanding the (often conflicting) principles that motivate it is -- and that's what makes it fun.

Have to disagree with this. The way Chemerinsky presents the information is ideal for preparation for most conlaw exams. Provided your professor is not way out there, the supplement is the way to go.

I guess it depends on how idiosyncratic your prof is and whether Chemerinsky is a good match ideologically. I use the Choper text and found Chemerinsky pretty much useless at worst and redundant at best. But to each his own.

[badfish]

con law is awesome.

that is all.

[vanwinkle]

What you are actually noticing is that Con Law sucks. Sadly, there's no getting around that.

[solidsnake]

con law is awesome.

that is all.

Agreed. I have this unsettling feeling that it's all downhill after con law..

[lostmymojo]

Conn Law isn't easy by any stretch of the imagination, but it is a really interesting course IMO.

Anyway, with regard to the Chemerinsky treatise... It's not so great for your crunch time final exam type stuff, but it's thorough enough and helpful enough to justify using it as a surrogate for the casebook in some instances. I think our Prof. might actually have been teaching from the treatise. My notes suggest as much.

EDIT: We did use the Chemerinsky casebook. Probably should have mentioned that.

[kings84_wr]

The E and E is awful.

I like Chemerinsky, but I don't think with my particular prof its really that helpful, he tends to teach in a way where its very unique to his own views and style. But still the only thing that is close to helpful is chemerinsky, anything else for Con law is really terrible.

[BradyToMoss]

The E and E is awful.

I like Chemerinsky, but I don't think with my particular prof its really that helpful, he tends to teach in a way where its very unique to his own views and style. But still the only thing that is close to helpful is chemerinsky, anything else for Con law is really terrible.

Forgot to mentions this. Certainly TCR.

[annapavlova]

While Chemerinsky has helped me understand Con Law, it has certainly not changed the fact that I hate it so so so much.

[engineer]

I usually have to play "hide the erection" in con law. There's just something about ripeness, mootness, and standing in general that just SETS ME ON FIRE.

[ak362]

I usually have to play "hide the erection" in con law. There's just something about ripeness, mootness, and standing in general that just SETS ME ON FIRE.

I would think the Commerce Clause really gets you going, given Gibbons v. Ogden.

[fortissimo]

What you are actually noticing is that Con Law sucks. Sadly, there's no getting around that.

+1 billion.
I'd take Civ Pro in any orifice 3 times a day over Con Law.

[Lawrence]

I'm pretty disappointed in Chemerinsky as well. I just cracked it open a few days ago to see if it would add anything to my preparation for the Con Law final, and it is pretty much just a restatement of what I have in my notes. In fact, it seems possible my professor has been reading out of the book the entire semester.

[pany1985]

I'm pretty disappointed in Chemerinsky as well. I just cracked it open a few days ago to see if it would add anything to my preparation for the Con Law final, and it is pretty much just a restatement of what I have in my notes. In fact, it seems possible my professor has been reading out of the book the entire semester.

Well that's hardly Chemerinsky's fault

[absworkoutplan]

What you are actually noticing is that Con Law sucks. Sadly, there's no getting around that.

+1 billion.
I'd take Civ Pro in any orifice 3 times a day over Con Law.

+ infinity. I despise this class, and cannot pay attention at all when I attend. I have skipped more con law classes than anything else by far in law school.

and lol at pany1985's comment.

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Chemerinsky treatise is...
TCR

No, seriously. Can't count the number of times professor called on someone in class, where the student repeated some section of Chemerinksy almost verbatim and the professor either acted, or pretended to act, amazed.

[dood]

...

[Lawrence]

I'm pretty disappointed in Chemerinsky as well. I just cracked it open a few days ago to see if it would add anything to my preparation for the Con Law final, and it is pretty much just a restatement of what I have in my notes. In fact, it seems possible my professor has been reading out of the book the entire semester.

Well that's hardly Chemerinsky's fault

No, it's not his fault. But I would hope a study aid would add something different than what you get from just listening in class. I personally find aids like the Civ Pro E&E which gives a lot of example problems to work through to be more helpful. However, I bought Chemerinsky knowing it was a treatise because it has such a great reputation. Maybe I just have a better Con Law teacher than most who explains things more clearly....who knows

[Matthies]

I think it comes down to what your needing it for. If you're trying to understand the meaning/policy behind the rule/case (and you expect a policy type exam) the Chem is likely best. if however your needing good short concise rule statements and already understand the policy aspect and expect a BLL/issue spotter than go to your schools library and grab a copy the Barbri Convisor mini review outline. Just use it to check your understanding of the BLL and exceptions. Policy con law sucks ass, BLL con law is pretty easy once you realize there are only a few core areas they can test you and the exceptions within those areas.

There are really only 12 areas of law that can be tested on Con law each issue will fit into one of the 12 (also depends if you do Con law I and II or just one semester)

ARTICLE III - STANDING, RIPENESS, MOOTNESS

I. Article III Requirement of Cases and Controversies - Standing, Ripeness and Mootness
a. Standing
b. Ripeness
c. Mootness
d. Political Question Doctrine

COURT REVIEW

I. Supreme Court Review

II. Lower Federal Court Review

FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE POWER

I. The Federal Legislative Power

FEDERAL EXECUTIVE POWER

I. The Federal Executive Power

FEDERALISM

I. Federalism
a. Preemption
b. Dormant Commerce Clause
c. Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV
d. State Taxation of Interstate Commerce
e. Full Faith and Credit Clause

II. Structure of the Constitution's Protection of Individual Liberties

THE BILL OF RIGHTS

I. Application of The Bill of Rights

II. The Three Levels of Scrutiny
a. Strict Scrutiny:
b. Intermediate Scrutiny:
c. Rational Basis Scrutiny:

INDIVIDUAL RIGHT - PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS

I. Individual Rights - Procedural Due Process

ECONOMIC LIBERTIES

I. Economic Liberties - the Takings Clause

II. Economic Liberties - The Contracts Clause

SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS

I. Substantive Due Process

II. The Right to Travel

III. The Right to Vote

IV. Rights and What Scrutiny They Trigger:
i. Right to Marry
ii. Right to Procreate
iii. Right to custody of Children
iv. Right to keep family together
v. Right to control raising of children
vi. Right to purchase and use contraceptives
vii. Right to travel
viii. Right to vote
ix. Freedom of Speech
x. Freedom of Association
xi. Free Exercise of religion (if the law is burdening religion is not a neutral law of general applicability)
xii. Abortion
xiii. Right to practice trade or profession
xiv. Right to physician assisted suicide
xv. Right to education
xvi. Right to engage in private consensual homosexual activity
xvii. Right to possess firearms

EQUAL PROTECTION

I. Equal Protection

II. Equal Protection - Classifications Based on Race and National Origin

III. Equal Protection - Gender Classifications

IV. Equal Protection - Alienage Classifications

V. Equal Protection - Illegitimacy

VI. Equal Protection - Rational Basis Review

SPEECH

I. The First Amendment Speech - Content Based Restrictions

II. The First Amendment Speech - Conduct Based Restrictions (Symbolic Speech)

III. The First Amendment Speech - Prior Restraints on Speech

IV. The First Amendment Speech - Vagueness and Overbreath

V. First Amendment Speech - Speech not Protected by First Amendment
a. General Rule: Obscenity and sexually-oriented speech - The test
b. General Rules Commercial Speech:
c. General Rules Defamation:
d. General Rules Privacy:
e. General Rules Speech by Government Employees:
f. General Rules All other restrictions:

VI. First Amendment Speech - Places Available for Speech - Time, Place and Manner Restrictions

VII. First Amendment Speech - Places Available for Speech - Public Forums

VIII. First Amendment Speech - Places Available for Speech - Non Public Forums

IX. First Amendment Speech - Freedom of Association

RELIGION

I. First Amendment Speech - Freedom of Religion - Free exercise Clause

II. First Amendment Speech - Freedom of Religion - Establishment Clause

III. First Amendment Speech - Freedom of Religion - Lemmon Test