Customer Reviews

Constitutional Law (Casebook Series)

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(3)
1 star:		(11)

 

 

I am finishing my second year of law school, so I have read quite a few case books. This is BY FAR the worst.
I have the 5th edition.
The cases are poorly edited, leaving out important information.
But the notes are even worse. The notes are very poorly organized, with very few headings and sub-headings. Between cases there is a seemingly endless sea of words with very few interesting points to make. Instead of using footnotes for the ridiculous number of citations, the authors decided to use in-line cites. This makes the book EXTREMELY difficult to read. It is common to see an entire paragraph that is entirely comprised of citations (literally!). Even the normal paragraphs are too cluttered with cites to be readable. If you have about 40 hours per week to devote to ConLaw, then you might enjoy all the cites (you will need to look them up yourself, because most are not explained). But if you are a law student, you will not have time to wade through this ocean of rambling.
This is basically a 1,700 page sleeping pill.

Professors: please do not inflict this book on your students.
Use Chemerinsky instead.

I hate to say it because I've actually had both Prof. Stone and Sunstein as teachers and they are great men, but even with my personal bias for them, this is still a poorly written casebook. I used it for two classes - one that covered Equal Protection and one over the structure of government. The section of the book on Equal Protection isn't too bad. It has some nice historical material, and most people are already somewhat familiar with the cases anyway. However, the section of the book on government structure and the commerce clause is truly attrocious. The cases aren't well edited. Sometimes the result of a case will turn on a statute and the text and even title of that statute will have been edited out. Its hard to tell what is important from the cases consequently. There are long strings of cites in cases and the notes after the cases are cramped with no real headings and hard to make heads or tales of. Half the time you can't tell why you are reading a case - what your supposed to be getting out of it and how it relates to the other cases you've read.

It's a casebook, so it's not supposed to be great reading, but this one is by far the worst casebook I've ever had. The only thing a casebook needs to do to achieve mediocrity is contain cases. This doesn't, not really. It gives you the cliff's notes of important cases. One sentence blurbs about others. And pages and pages of rambling, aimless, academic debate. It may be a good book for Con Law professors and others who have already read all of the cases discussed. For someone trying to learn con law, it is useless. It is also organized very poorly. Any class organized around this book is doomed from the start. If your professor uses this book, take another class. If you can't take another class, buy the Chemerinsky treatise and rely on that instead. Professors: DO NOT USE THIS BOOK.

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.

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.

Content
The editing sucks. The notes suck. The case selection sucks.

Construction
This book shares the same physical problems that all Aspen casebooks suffer. The binding sucks. The book will not lay flat; the hump in the pages makes it hard to read, damn near impossible to underline. The paper is too thin, print shows through not only from the other side of the page, but from other pages below. The paper is an icky off white. The font is funky with awkward leading and hard to read. The margins are non-existent. Forget about writing in the book. The cover is cheaply made and wears poorly.

Compare to a University Casebook Series book which lies flatter, has wide margins, easy to read font and page layout, nice white paper, and excellent build quality.

UPDATE: By the end of the semester, no one in my class of over 60 was still reading this book. Don't waste your money buying, even if its assigned. Don't use this awful book.

Con law students, if you're assigned this awful book, here's what to do. Wikipedia has awesome summaries on con law cases, such as "Lochner v. New York" and "Roe v. Wade," and con law topics, such as "incorporation" and "substantive due process." Don't use this book. First, read wikipedia, then use what ever supplement is assigned or that you like (I liked Understanding Constitution Law from Lexis, but most students in my class liked the assigned Constitutional Law by Chemerinsky). If need be, you can look up a case on Lexis or Westlaw, and with the headnotes, jump to the relevant portion of the case. You don't need this book, and even if you buy it, after a couple of weeks you'll stop reading it.

Update II: Con Law II
Just finished Con Law II without touching this book. Didn't even bother bringing it to class. Just used Lexis during class if needed.

Truly one of the worst law school books I've used so far. Everything the other (negative reviews) said was true. The author doesn't use footnotes, captions, endnotes, or offset text. No it is all just thrown together in one huge block of text on the page. The reading is nothing more than wading thru a morass of text which actually has no real bearing on the cases presented and doesn't add anything constructive to the understanding of the nuances of the case. horrible writing. Horrible editing. This book would be 1000% better if all supporting text was removed and nothing more than the bare cases were presented.

If you are a professor, don't use this book.
If you are a student, buy casenotes and only read the cases from this book.

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.

This is the WORST casebook I've had in law school so far (though the Torts Aspen casebook is pretty bad, as well). Explanations and background information are included AFTER the case, which makes little sense, and when you add in the swampy structure and paragraph-long cites this is incredibly hard to wade through. Reading the "Notes" is generally a waste of time--the author brings up many theories but skims them all, rather than explaining anything in depth, and is a little too fond of asking questions rather than providing answers about the concepts. Definitely order a supplement along with this casebook, because you won't be grasping the law on your own without an amazing teacher or a truly advanced form of intelligence.

I just want to reiterate the other review by saying that this is the WORST. CASEBOOK. EVER.

No headings.
No organization.
The notes are terrible.
The book is too long to ever get through.

Simply the worst casebook ever written.