Need a method to learn enough Con Law not to fail my exam on Tuesday. Median would be super amazing (unlikely, I know). Didn't go to class. We apparently learned individual rights and EPC/SDP kind of stuff. Chemerinsky is incomprehensible. What I need is something like Acing Civ Pro or flowcharts to just break it down and regurgitate on the exam.

Any advice? I basically need to start from the beginning but in this class I don't know where the beginning is.

I would still go with Chemerinsky. I learned an entire semester's worth of Con Law I in about 4 days with it and ended up doing more than fine on the exam.

look at outline depot for a good outline and memorize it

Chemerinsky is the CR, but I found the Gilbert Audio Guide from John Jeffries helpful.

I aced Constitutional Law last semester if you want my outline or attack sheet.

^ pm'd

shameless bump

+1 for chemerinsky

basically used it in lieu of my crappy notes

flowcharts: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwtZDju ... t?hl=en_US

outline: https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_qbe_s ... dit?pli=1#

poaster: "hey guys I didnt study for the LSAT at all and want to go to T6, can I get a quick breakdown on the test?"

TLS 0L's:

"LOL GL BRO, DIE"
"scrub wants T6 with no work. Idiot. have fun failing"
"TTTTT cooley for you"

poaster: "hey guys I didn't study at all for an entire lawl skool semester, can you teach me my class?"

TLS 1, 2, 3L's:

"yeah bro here's everything you need"
"sup, here's what to do...*complete answer to question with all issues and explanations*"
"haha I did the same thing - here's the outline I used for an 'A'"


Hm.

The one thing law school teaches you is humility.

+1

I was actually talking to this Columbia grad on Saturday and he told me that Con Law is the one class on which using an outside book is critical. I assume he meant Chemerinsky.

I worked for my con law professor over the summer. He read me some of the answers to certain questions he thought were just leaps and bounds above the rest. I wondered why it sounded so familiar; it was chemerinsky written into the exam - analogies, case summaries, everything. It doesn't matter if chemerinsky is incomprehensible, just write what he says about the topic into the exam. I read the whole thing twice, got an A- w/o reading more than 5 cases.

Con law final was today. Thanks for the help everyone!!!! What a messed up exam. Seriously so weird.