I feel like I'm drowning in this subject - contracts and property are so much better. We have a 6 hour take home exam. I haven't been doing the textbook reading all year - instead I read the applicable Chemerinsky chapters. I have 120 pages of size 11, single spaced class notes. It's too much for me to go over to create an outline (I'll read through them once or twice before the exam; I've tried cutting the irrelevant stuff to make it shorter but it took me over an hour to do 5 pages).

Is there a good, concise commercial outline anywhere with just the relevant modern law? I just need to know the commerce clause, dormant CC, due process, EPC, etc; normal stuff. Most of my notes are history, and I have like 20 cases on the commerce clause that I have no idea what to do with.

What about an outline for an older law student?

When you take your exam you just need to think of what branch is acting and whether or not they have the authority to do what they are doing. For example, you know Congress is acting--so consider the Section 5, the power to tax, the spending power and the commerce clause. PM me for a chart that sums this up.

Also you can literally ignore every commerce clause case except for Lopez, Morrison and Gonzaels v. Raich.

Search function, breh.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=144675

I was in the same boat as you three days ago and what I did is I got two outlines from students at my school who had my teacher in prior semesters and took my notes (you took notes, right?) and just dove right in. I organized it by my teacher's syllabus and just started writing the outline while drawing from the other outlines and my notes. My knowledge of con law just a few days later is much better and I feel like I'm getting a grasp of this class. It's amazing what just diving into your outline does for your knowledge.

That only comes out to ~24 hours. Definitely doable. Tedious, but doable. The other advice about getting 2L/3L outlines is also a solid idea.

Also, nobody understands con law.

My conlaw professor is possibly/probably the least liked professor at my school. There was 1 outline from the professor's course on outlinedepot and it represented the frustration all of the current students are going through(it ended somewhere around week 3/4). I've never had a professor that has such a bad reputation that whenever I mention this professor's name to faculty I receive an apology. Also, old students don't tend to have outlines that make any sense because the professor doesn't make any sense. It probably wouldn't help anyway because the professor changes the course a lot each year because of all the complaints.

What's the best strategy in this situation?

PMs do not help if you don't send me your e-mail address.

The good news is, neither does anyone else (including the Supreme Court.)

Links to con law charts:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17M4 ... 7Zo3A/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pzi ... Qcu_4/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/185c ... 18uaU/edit
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yK5 ... SnOOE/edit

Try to get a big picture idea. The details in Con Law will drive you crazy. Identify the standard of review. Look at the most modern cases on the subject to put together an idea of what the law is today. Try to identify the major points of divergence in how these Clauses are understood. List out arguments for each side based on the text, purpose, history, precedents, policy, etc.

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.

The crunchtime is chock full of charts.

Came here to post this.

I'm not the biggest con law fan either (understatement), but I've found thinking about the goal of each section (our class is broken into Separation of Powers, Federalism, and Substantive Due Process/Equal Protection portions) while reviewing the cases is very helpful. My prof likes to ask open ended questions where you have to discuss the unit as a whole using two or three cases to flesh out how the Supreme Court analyzing cases in that module. If your prof is anything like that, this approach may be helpful. I'm not sure how great it would be for an issue spotter exam but for silly cerebral exams like mine, I think it will be helpful.

And if you're the Supreme Court hearing a case about healthcare, you can ignore those too!


Ba-dum-tis!!!

any good charts and stuff for Takings? have troublez with mathews elridge

balance bro, balance

This is a very good post.

Not sure if you fold standing into justiciability, but make sure you don't ignore it.

Fantastic post. Working on ConLaw all day today so that it makes some sense, thank you for the frame work.

I'm starting to think my Con Law teacher is just bad. We haven't covered anything in justiciability except for political question.

OP, this video might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VESzLBqx7KY

We didn't do any of it either. She says that we can stay tuned in Federal Courts for that bit. I'd rather not.