Constitutional Law (Casebook Series)

Rating:
Summary: Too Well Edited
Review: A good starting Con Law book, however, as the title of this review states, it was too well edited. Crucial facts surrounding key cases like Marbery were not included. The omission makes it easier to read through the voluminous pages, but it's not enough. The reader will *have* to supplement the text with strong in-class notes or a commercial text/outline. There are some key cases simply 'missing' and the coverage of prominent cases like "Brown" is simply insufficient. Comparison and analysis of how one case indirectly may overrule another is also lacking. Overall, it is not a BAD book, the authors probably need to cut some dead weight so they have room to include the missing pieces. Also -- a word to the wise -- since the current Supreme Court is the most active, it is essential for the student to keep up with the latest decsions.

Rating:
Summary: Poorly organized and inconcise
Review: As a brief look at any well written treatise will show you, the organization of the notes and note cases in this book is inconsistent and "without reference to any logical or reasonable formula whatever" (See Baker v Carr). If you are a first year law student stuck with this book, beware! My suggestion is to find a good treatise like Chemerinsky's "Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies" to help you discern what you need to know. Otherwise, be prepared to spend endless frustrating hours trying to make some sense of it all!

Rating:
Summary: Poorly organized and inconcise
Review: I used this book for my Con Law I and II course, so I feel that I know this book pretty well. For Con Law I, the book was absolutely TERRIBLE. The cases are edited down so much that they are borderline incoherent, such as in Marbury v. Madison and McCullough v. Maryland. There is a great deal of "commentary" in between cases from the authors regarding the information they edited out within the cases, but the structure of learning what was in the case AFTER reading through the case is confusing and time consuming, forcing you to retrace a lot of your steps needlessly. The bottom line on this book for Con Law I is to buy the Legalines supplement for this book, and read it religiously after every case. Chemerinsky's supplement is a great deal of assistance as well, because Con Law I is much more confusing for students using this book (from inquiring through other classmates using different texts). For Con Law II, the subject matter gets 100 times more interesting, but the content of the book remains the same. As a reviewer previously stated, the editing of Brown v. Board of Education is absolutely unacceptable. Such a landmark case fit into four pages? Ridiculous! However, there will be a lot of stimulating class discussion to supplement the extremely edited-down cases presented in Con Law II. My best advice? Buy supplements and keep yourself on top of what you're reading before you get too lost, and make notecards to keep the tests for different circumstances (like justiciability, commerce clause, dormant commerce clause, etc.) straight.

Rating:
Summary: Too much commentary and not enough substance!
Review: I used this book for my Con Law I and II course, so I feel that I know this book pretty well. For Con Law I, the book was absolutely TERRIBLE. The cases are edited down so much that they are borderline incoherent, such as in Marbury v. Madison and McCullough v. Maryland. There is a great deal of "commentary" in between cases from the authors regarding the information they edited out within the cases, but the structure of learning what was in the case AFTER reading through the case is confusing and time consuming, forcing you to retrace a lot of your steps needlessly. The bottom line on this book for Con Law I is to buy the Legalines supplement for this book, and read it religiously after every case. Chemerinsky's supplement is a great deal of assistance as well, because Con Law I is much more confusing for students using this book (from inquiring through other classmates using different texts). For Con Law II, the subject matter gets 100 times more interesting, but the content of the book remains the same. As a reviewer previously stated, the editing of Brown v. Board of Education is absolutely unacceptable. Such a landmark case fit into four pages? Ridiculous! However, there will be a lot of stimulating class discussion to supplement the extremely edited-down cases presented in Con Law II. My best advice? Buy supplements and keep yourself on top of what you're reading before you get too lost, and make notecards to keep the tests for different circumstances (like justiciability, commerce clause, dormant commerce clause, etc.) straight.

Rating:
Summary: The WORST casebook in all of law school
Review: This book is terrible. The content is too hard to follow because the editing is way over the top. The Notes sections, in particular, are the worst I have ever seen in a law school casebook (especially if your professor actually goes over each case mentioned that spans all of 2 lines). The editing makes simple concepts seem way too complicated as it constantly presents circular arguments that lead to nowhere. If you are using this casebook for class, I suggest you get a good commercial study aide like Chemerinsky's Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies or the Examples & Explainations.

Rating:
Summary: Dreadful Beyond Belief!
Review: This is THE MOST HORRIBLE casebook ever. Cases are edited to the point of being incomprehensible. Notes are incredibly dry, boring, obscurely academic, and utterly unhelpful. This book is completely useless for the study of Con law. Buy Chemerinsky instead.

Rating:
Summary: Dreadful Beyond Belief!
Review: This is THE MOST HORRIBLE casebook ever. Cases are edited to the point of being incomprehensible. Notes are incredibly dry, boring, obscurely academic, and utterly unhelpful. This book is completely useless for the study of Con law. Buy Chemerinsky instead.