Con Law breaks down into a few basic questions: 1) who is acting? 2) Do they have constitutional authority to act? 3) Are there any federalism issues? 4) Are there individual rights that prohibit them from acting in that way?
Much of the analysis breaks down in the same way, too. If Congress is doing something, they have to do it pursuant to Art 1 powers (commerce, necessary and proper, tax and spending) or Reconstruction era amendments. 10th and 11th amendments limit their power. Analyze under all of these. If the president is doing something, look for inherent powers or any specific powers that are present or can be implied (appointment, removal, executive privilege, war powers, etc). If its a state acting or Congress is acting, make sure there are no federalism or preemption issues. For individual rights, look to due process/equal protection/fundamental rights violations. Look at the group being discriminated against or the right being infringed on, identify the standard of review, then analyze it under that and whatever standard of review you don't use (just in case you did it wrong).
Oh, and don't forget justiciability. I just throw that into the beginning of any question, even though it is mostly dismissive (IE DUH THIS IS RIPE).
At least that is how my class breaks down. I got through almost all of this analysis regardless of what is going on (IE even just a sentence to dismiss tax and spending as completely unrelated to the legislation at issue). I've only done a couple of practice tests, but it actually seems more straightforward to me than crim law. Ugh crim law.
Fantastic post. Working on ConLaw all day today so that it makes some sense, thank you for the frame work.