#3,806 in Books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product

Reddit mentions of Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Student Treatise Series)

Sentiment score: 6
Reddit mentions: 17

We found 17 Reddit mentions of Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Student Treatise Series). Here are the top ones.

Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Student Treatise Series)
Buying options
View on Amazon.com
or
    Features:
  • Constitutional Law
Specs:
Height10 Inches
Length7 Inches
Number of items1
Weight3.8 Pounds
Width2.25 Inches

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Found 17 comments on Constitutional Law: Principles and Policies (Aspen Student Treatise Series):

u/PepperoniFire · 18 pointsr/LawSchool

> Is there any secondary source I could be pointed to that might make the whole con law concept easier to grasp?

The answer to this question is always Chemerinsky's hornbook. I outlined this instead of my textbook and it worked out very well.

u/kwassa1 · 17 pointsr/law
  1. Don't go to law school.

  2. If you insist, anything by Chemerinsky is good for an overview of constitutional law. Dworkin is also interesting and pretty accessible. For an overview of the types of theory you'll learn in torts, check out Coase's The Nature of the Firm (pdf).
u/andgiveayeLL · 11 pointsr/news

Chemerinsky's book is the only reason I got a good grade in con law in law school

Anyone who wants to learn more about constitutional law should check this out. It is massive but utterly readable as far as law books go

u/mario_meowingham · 7 pointsr/politics

Chemerinsky literally writes textbooks on constitutional law.

https://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975

u/[deleted] · 5 pointsr/LawSchool

Didn't realize he was Australian. One of the books looked like the chimerinski guide to US constitutional law so I assumed American. my b.

u/real_nice_guy · 5 pointsr/LawSchool

>That is, I don't plan on practicing law, but rather I'd look to study civil rights law and constitutional history so as to improve my prospects as a professor of political theory

Go buy this book, read it cover to cover, and save yourself the 150k of debt you'd need to go into just to take a semester/year long class in Con law.

Getting a JD will do nothing at all for your career prospects after your PhD unless you want to become an actual attorney.

u/blargleblargleblarg · 3 pointsr/LawSchool

Buy Chemerinsky's con law treatise. Seriously. It got me an A in con law, and it's succinct and well-written.
http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=pd_sim_b_3

u/newlawyer2014 · 2 pointsr/LawSchool

I totally concur with OP, supplements are supplements, not replacements. Read the case book, then read the relevant chapter from the supplement to ensure you got everything you were supposed to get out of it. Once you are getting everything out of the casebook in the first pass, you can discard supplements entirely if you like.

Best supplements, in my opinion:

u/jd_edc · 1 pointr/atheism

> people who would not be prosecuted if not for speech implicating them in a conspiracy are prosecuted because of said speech

So your argument is that criminalizing more speech is ok because sometimes some speech=evidence of criminality?

I assumed you were at least passingly familiar with the volumes of scholarship and precedent surrounding this area when I made my statement. If not, this is a great place to start. Core speech, i.e. political speech, wasn't criminalized during the Ratification era 'when the ink was fresh', if you want to take an original/textualist bent, nor was that the stated intent/purpose of dozens of founding statesmen and founding-era jurists, but only after the Alien and Sedition Acts, which again, was argued as unconstitutional by many of the same.

Or, something something Federalist normative nonsense.

u/Bented · 1 pointr/AskMen

http://law.lclark.edu/courses/catalog/law_007.php

Please note that this is not the school I attended. I have no desire to post that information. I cannot condense three years of information, or even two semesters of Con Law into a citation for you. It is not possible. Books are available on this topic. Large ones with all the illuminating case cites you desire.

http://www.amazon.com/Constitutional-Law-Principles-Policies-Treatise/dp/0735598975/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1422199742&sr=1-1&pebp=1422199756757&peasin=735598975 Chemerinsky is always a good choice.

u/timesyours · -1 pointsr/LawSchool

Imagining you don't have time to read full books amidst your other 1L reading, try Wikipedia (seriously). Obviously, be wary of the source, but for an article as researched and clicked-on as the "United States Constitution," you'd be hard-pressed to find any fundamental errors.

Also try Wikipedia pages like:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1776–89)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_(1789–1849)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

Also, most, if not all, of the cases you will read in ConLaw will have Wikipedia pages, since we are talking about some of the landmark cases of all time. Most of the pages are well-researched, and it is usually easy to tell when they are not (by lack of citation, grammatical/spelling errors, etc). Before reading a case, go to Wikipedia to get background information that will put everything in context. It will make the cases easier to remember, they will make more sense from a legal standpoint, and you will know more than most of your classmates. (But I am a history buff, so maybe other people don't care).

For a supplement, I cannot recommend Chemerinsky's "Principles and Policies" enough. It will be invaluable throughout law school and beyond. At over 1400 pages, it is not meant to be a beginning-to-end page turner, but rather is an immensely helpful resource on individual topics as you go along.

u/redketh · -1 pointsr/news

Yet you cannot seem to form even a minimally cogent legal argument on why that would be unconstitutional. I'm talking to a wall here, and am seriously getting tired of going in circles with you. I won't be continuing this thread further, but will leave you with a referral to a book that was helpful for me in understanding Constitutional law.

u/SHEAHOFOSHO · -6 pointsr/politics

I had to pay $200,000 for my law degree. Not educating you for free. If you're honestly interested in con law, here is a good starting point. http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0735598975?pc_redir=1396454528&robot_redir=1