I wanted to write him personal letters thanking him for this book, and so did all my friends who used it. I still might. Saved me in my Constitutional Law class.
Fantastic supplement to Chemerinsky’s main constitutional textbook! Not much shorter, but does make the major points more digestible. Incredibly helpful for law school exams.
Read for Constitutional Law. Not your typical law school textbook. Definitely enjoyed a break from the traditional casebook style. Offered a lot of interesting anecdotes.
I relied completely on this book for class and it didn't let me down - it was infinitely better than the assigned book. His Barbri lectures (though terribly slow) are also really helpful.
He even tells jokes: Why are seagulls called seagulls? Because if they flew over the bay, they'd be called bagels!
Chemerinsky is the best constitutional law professor in the country. This book is used for con law classes across the nation - great reference. He is an amazing professor and any student that has a chance to take a class with him should!
It was everything I was told it would be and more. It is a particularly good study guide/ companion to Constitutional Law because it is clear and (believe it or not from its length) concise. It spends just the right amount of time on background information and key cases.
A must if you are studying constitutional law. Very clear explanations, and definitely saved me while I was studying for my constitutional law final. It is comprehensive and has most of the cases you will need to know, except for the most recent ones such as the health care and gay marriage cases.
What I've learned from this book...so far, the scope of Congress's commerce power. Is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 constitutional? I can't wait to find out!
Bad. One of my least favorite case books ever. After page 1,000, Chemerinsky's page editors are asleep at the wheel. Seriously, "Fist Amendment?" Howabout FIRST Amendment? With an R??
This is a pretty good intro to US Constitutional law. At times I felt it could be written better - and I certainly think there's a bias in the writing, but overall a good historical introduction.
man was this a big book. was it really necessary to include the same cases in different sections? could he just have referred the reader to the case, rather than reprinting them?