What's a good text for US Constitutional Law?

[maple leaf lawyer]

What is the name of your state? Vancouver, BC

I am a Canadian lawyer who will be applying to take the Washington State Bar, and I would like a reference to a good text on US Constitutional Law. If someone can give a good reference, in preparation for my bar exams and bar review courses, I'd greatly appreciate it, thanks.

[tranquility]

It's long, but "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" by Erwin Chemerinsky is great. Con law is hard without both a map (this book)and the territory (case book) because most everything is how you argue it on the essay. While there are many rules, without reading the cases that got to the rules I think it would be hard to see the why. I remember I had a con law question on my Bar and I had no idea of the answer. But, I just started writing and the policy just came to me. Good luck.

Info edit:
Reading the Constitution is necessary, but is not sufficent. There is no way you can understand the Consitution by reading it.

[quincy]

Kathleen Sullivan's "Constitutional Law" - another good one, and she's from the great state of Michigan! By the way, I just deleted my earlier post because it was really really stupid - my brain was operating on a whole different level - high school student government class tutoring does it to you

[maple leaf lawyer]

My intent is to read up on American constitutional law, then take the bar review courses. Washington State is an English common-law jurisdiction, so the principles are very similar.

[BoredAtty]

Originally Posted by tranquility

It's long, but "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" by Erwin Chemerinsky is great. Con law is hard without both a map (this book)and the territory (case book) because most everything is how you argue it on the essay. While there are many rules, without reading the cases that got to the rules I think it would be hard to see the why. I remember I had a con law question on my Bar and I had no idea of the answer. But, I just started writing and the policy just came to me. Good luck.

Info edit:
Reading the Constitution is necessary, but is not sufficent. There is no way you can understand the Consitution by reading it.

I second Chemerinsky's hornbook. That was a required book (along with the casebook) in my Con Law class, and is considered the standard.

In my opinion, though, you should start with BarBri and use Chemerinsky only when you are sufficiently confused. For the bar exam, you won't need the kind of detail that Chemerinsky will give you. It may be information overload.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by BoredAtty

...

In my opinion, though, you should start with BarBri and use Chemerinsky only when you are sufficiently confused. For the bar exam, you won't need the kind of detail that Chemerinsky will give you. It may be information overload.
....

I agree. They are not looking for a US Supreme Court decision but rather a sensible defense of your decision.

[tranquility]

I agree with seniorjudge and BoredAtty that the Bar will not be seeking case law. However, I had a hard time with my Con law question. Maybe it was because I read too much into it and found too many issues, but I don't know. I took a con law class and the bar review and an uncertain if the bar review would be enough for this particular subject. To me, it seemed like most of the subjects could be passed with a little skill at essay writing and a good review course. Con law seems different to me in that you need to do a little more than throw out buzz words and apply the facts to them. You still need to do that, it's just that recognizing what facts even apply to the black-letter law was really hard. Maybe I wasn't that good at the topic, but I sure liked it and spent the time trying to learn it. (To me, Crim pro (4th, 5th and 6th amendments) is a different subject. I assume that's the same with everyone else.)

I don't see how you can do the law thing of applying the facts without reading a lot of cases as the application was way more important in Supreme Court decisions than the acutal holding. Did you guys find differently?

[seniorjudge]

Back when I was a prosecuting attorney (this was shortly after the War of Northern Aggression), I watched a series of tapes on the Fourth Amendment by some professor who was at a law school in Maryland and has since been elevated to the bench (Federal, I believe).

I wish I could remember that guy's name and get ahold of those tapes again.

He could literally talk for three or four hours spewing out citations and examples and never once look at a note (and I doubt that he had a teleprompter).

[BoredAtty]

Originally Posted by tranquility

I don't see how you can do the law thing of applying the facts without reading a lot of cases as the application was way more important in Supreme Court decisions than the acutal holding. Did you guys find differently?

I know what you mean in that learning how to apply the law properly to a set of facts requires examples, and caselaw gives those examples. But I didn't really brush up on caselaw at all for the bar exam, and I think I only turned to Chemerinsky once or twice.**

Here was my approach: (1) Skim the outline. You won't learn anything from it, but you'll reacquaint yourself with the topics so they won't look like Greek when you see them again. (2) Do a million practice essays. After each essay, read the answer. In essence, use the practice essay answers to learn the law and how to apply it. Only use the outline when stumped (and Chemerinsky when really stumped).

**If I recall correctly, I was confused with regard to the Constitution, which does not allow you to sue a state in federal court, and the NJ trash case, in which the state of NJ is sued in federal court. I don't think I ever made sense of it, so I finally gave up on the advice of a friend who rightfully told me to ignore that contradiction (if it even is one), and just go for the low hanging fruit (Commerce Clause). Any answers for that problem?

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by Stanley Foo

What is the name of your state? Vancouver, BC

I am a Canadian lawyer who will be applying to take the Washington State Bar, and I would like a reference to a good text on US Constitutional Law. If someone can give a good reference, in preparation for my bar exams and bar review courses, I'd greatly appreciate it, thanks.

I have watched the appellate court arguments of Canadian courts on the television up there; I am amazed at the Crown attorneys.

They are usually so well-prepared that they make the judges look like schoolboys.

[tranquility]

But I didn't really brush up on caselaw at all for the bar exam, and I think I only turned to Chemerinsky once or twice.

Nor did I. Doing all that briefing made the stories stick in my head and I did no review of case law for the Bar. But, I *had* a class in Con law. I suspect our Canadian friend hasn't had a class in U.S. Constitution law. I think you could get through all the other areas of examination with a good review and a little practice even without the class. I just don't know about Con law.

[seniorjudge]

Originally Posted by tranquility

Nor did I. Doing all that briefing made the stories stick in my head and I did no review of case law for the Bar. But, I *had* a class in Con law. I suspect our Canadian friend hasn't had a class in U.S. Constitution law. I think you could get through all the other areas of examination with a good review and a little practice even without the class. I just don't know about Con law.

Just hit the highlights.

We haven't had any cases of letters of marque and reprisal for a couple of centuries.

[maple leaf lawyer]

War of Nothern Agression??? You mean the War of Southern Liberation, don't you? I'm from British North America, now known as Canada, so we have a different opinion of that trouble-maker, George Washington, and we definitely have a different opinion about the Americans entered both world wars so late.

But, seriously, I know very little about the American constitution, so you think Bar/Bri would be a good start?

The rest of the private law subjects are pretty basic, so I can go straight to Bar/Bri, but the American constitution is the grand-daddy of all constitutions, so I'm a little nervous about that.

[tranquility]

The rest of the private law subjects are pretty basic, so I can go straight to Bar/Bri, but the American constitution is the grand-daddy of all constitutions, so I'm a little nervous about that.

This is my point. My experience is that Con Law is different from the other subjects. There are not *that* many rules--at least as compared to the other areas. The hard part is is the balancing factors. What facts lead to one conclusion, what facts lead to another? While the book I recommended is not for casual reading, you would love to refer to it before or after taking the cram. I don't know your timeline though. Are you talkign about taking it soon or do you have some months?

[maple leaf lawyer]

My target date is June 2008, but, if I can get over the Con Law, then I'd like to try in a few months' time.