Constitutional Law

by Gerald Gunther, Gerald Gunther

Focuses on four key Federalism ( Lopez , NY v. U.S. , Term Limits , and Seminole Tribe ), Equal Protection (affirmative action and voting rights), Free Speech (indecent speech in the internet, tobacco advertising and campaign money), and Religion (Religious Freedom Restoration Act, debates over the meaning of religious liberty).

Genres: Law, Politics, Reference, Nonfiction, Textbooks, History, School

1696 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1937

Reviews

[Joe · Rating 1 out of 5]

Too many characters, very wordy, and everyone is always arguing. It also sucks the happiness away from you like a dementor.

[Meredith Holley · Rating 1 out of 5]

You know how we’re always saying that we love reviews that just summarize the plot of a book and then say whether the reviewer liked the book or not? I know, you just sighed and your eyes turned into hearts when you thought about them. Oh, no wait, the opposite. So, this book is the legal version of that. I don’t know whether it was meant to be a study guide, rather than a casebook, or what, but it is the worst casebook I’ve ever read. I hate it. I find the way it is laid out and edited so arrogant that I can’t help but think that Kathleen Sullivan is a pseudonym for Harold Bloom. It’s like the longest law review article ever written. I hate this book.

Most casebooks that I have read will set out a case with some sections edited out. Then, between cases, there will be questions and possibly summaries of other cases that are relevant to the topic, but less important. This book edits within the sentences in the cases. Like, if the judge who wrote the case opinion wrote, “Thus, the plaintiff should win,” the casebook will say, “[T]he plaintiff should win.” So, there are tons of random brackets throughout all of the cases based on how the casebook authors thought the judge should have written the opinion. That’s obnoxious. Also, most of the cases are only summaries written by the casebook authors. THAT DRIVES ME CRAZY!!!! I hate this book.

I’ve really only read about a fourth of this book. Maybe half. So, no one tell VirJohn. It was the text we used for my Con Law II class. The text for my Con Law I class was immeasurably better. Also, this class went sooooo slooooow. I’m really interested in the topic and I like the professor as a person, but I feel like the class moved so slowly that I probably missed some of what I should have learned. Here are the basics of what I know:

EQUAL PROTECTION

The Fourteenth Amendment says, “No State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” So, equal protection, like due process, only applies to laws of the states. Citizens can discriminate as much as they want (trickier, though, when the private citizen is offering a public service). State laws are unconstitutional if they discriminate, but that doesn’t really mean anything if you just say it like that. Or, rather, it means something way more broad than what the Court has said the Amendment actually means.

When the Court reviews a state law to see if it violates equal protection, the Court either uses strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, or a rational basis test. Strict scrutiny asks whether the law is (1) narrowly tailored to (2) serve a compelling state interest. Rational basis asks if the state had any reason whatsoever to pass the law. So, strict scrutiny almost always overturns laws and rational basis almost always upholds them. Intermediate is in the middle.

When the law involves race discrimination, courts have to use strict scrutiny. When laws involve sex discrimination, courts use intermediate scrutiny. When they involve sexual orientation (and almost everything else), courts use rational basis.

SPEECH

Speech is protected, except when it’s not. I don’t feel like talking about this because I got sick of it during the He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named debacle. First Amendment is still totally my favorite ever, though.

That’s basically all I learned. We talked about money contributions and Citizens United a little bit. We read Perry v. Schwarzenegger, which is now my favorite opinion ever. I literally hugged it while I was reading it. Otherwise, I mostly messed around on the internet, panicked that I missed important things, and then realized that I didn’t miss anything because the class went so slow. There is a rumor that people who took this professor for both Con Law I and II never learned about substantive due process and the right to privacy, so that’s . . . unfortunate. I kind of want my money back for the class, but I’d pay, like 20 bucks for the jokes and shooting-the-shit parts of the class. I’m not stingy.

[Sydni Segroves · Rating 3 out of 5]

Loved this class. My DILF Professor really elevated the learning experience.

[Abby Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

IT’S SOOO GOOD I COULDN’T PUT THIS DOWNNN BRUH 1740 PAGES NEVER WENT BY SO FAST🥰🥹🥹🥹😇😇

[Jessica · Rating 3 out of 5]

like a 7/10. Fav part was the slow-burn enemies-to-lovers plot.

[Jason Kinn · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is long -- 1537 pages. I read it with all deliberate speed, and it still took me 6 months.

The fact that I finished this book highlights my particular brand of obsession. I spent over $100 on this doorstop 18 years ago, and damned I'll be if I'm not going to get every pennyworth of knowledge out of it. And I did.

Top 8 Justices (as of 2001, date of publication of this book), off the top of my head -- only criteron being quality of writing and logic:

1. John Marshall
2. Thurgood Marshall
3. Sandra Day O'Connor
4. Earl Warren
5. Antonin Scalia
6. Hugo Black
7. John Marshall Harlan
8. Ruth Bader Ginsburg

While I have given this volume four stars, I would give the Constitutional structure set up by the founders only about 2 1/2 stars. Pretty good for its day, but definitely old and tired and, due to the stringent requirements of Article V, not able to be amended. The founders declared a slave 3/5 of a person, didn't foresee the rise of political faction or put any checks on that kind of power, wrote a terrible Second Amendment that has resulted in wholesale slaughter and a suicide epidemic, and didn't foresee the concentration of great wealth that has rendered our democratic republic an elaborate sham. They coulda done better. Oh well.

[Lourdes [hiatus]]

that was a lot

[Diem · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't believe I found this on the least popular list. What's not to love? Supreme Court cases and the opinions that accompanied them. Provided some of the funniest reading of my life. Its got a good beat and I can dance to it. 5 stars.

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this under the watchful eye of Professor Fried, Solicitor General to the Reagan Administration. He was a liberal, in the old-school meaning of that term, and had no problem with Lawrence v. Texas. There is indeed a right to privacy in America. So if you like interfering in the lives of the people, fark on back to Russia where they love authoritarians, and get the hell out of my country.

[Paul · Rating 1 out of 5]

Uneven plot, long winded and often obscure prose. Many inconsistencies and internal conflicts. I'm hoping for a surprise ending. OK, I'm really just hoping it will end.

[Matthew Warchal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Supreme Court cases and some explanation. I bought it as a reference/coffee table reading. A good overall companion to every constitutional issues, however, discussion of cases often ends abruptly or requires outside research to finish a point in a particular section.

[Lindsay · Rating 4 out of 5]

At least the publisher will never run out of hot topics and hilarious content that will survive for generations of law nerds to take it all in.

[Jackie Days · Rating 3 out of 5]

Schoolhouse Rock but a lot more words.

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This version follows in the wake of a long tradition of excellence. This work began as an edited Con Law text, created by Noel Dowling, in 1937. In the 1960s, what had formerly been Dowling alone became Dowling and Gunther. As Gerald Gunther did more of the work, it became known as Gunther and Dowling (the way the authors were ordered when I first acquired a copy in graduate school). Later, Gunther became listed as the sole editor. Now, Kathleen Sullivan has stepped in to be listed as co-editor of this esteemed, long-lived volume.

And it continues to be one of the best texts in Constitutional Law. Several issues make this an excellent volume (especially for law school students). One, it covers a great deal of material. There are myriad cases (normally, nicely edited so that one gets a large number of cases--but for which there is enough of the Court's opinion to make the logic of the Justices intelligible).

Two, there is plenty of context provided for major cases. For instance, after the presentation of the Court's opinion in "Marbury v. Madison," there are a number of snippets exploring the history of judicial review, the controversy over the Court's claim that it could strike down laws as unconstitutional, and so on.

Three, after key cases, there are a host of follow up questions to get the reader thinking about the implications of the decision. These questions, themselves, are an important part of this (and many other) law school textbooks (whether Con Law, Environmental Law, Administrative Law, etc.).

Once more, this text is one more edition that contributes to the legacy of Noel Dowling's original volume, produced first back in the 1930s. After plowing through this fat volume, people who persevere will have a much more nuanced and intelligible understanding of the Constitution.

[Dw Duke · Rating 5 out of 5]

I first became familiar with Gerald Gunther's book when I was in law school and have always kept a copy of the latest edition. In my opinion he is a leading scholar on constitutional law. He has the ability to place commentary in between the cases that is always unbiased and impartial while directly on point. I always knew that I could count on Gunther to hit the important points without contaminating the text with his personal bias.

[Ke · Rating 4 out of 5]

Because I only needed this casebook for Free Speech Clause cases, I can only talk about part of this casebook. I thought that the editor did a great job including the most important cases, asking relevant questions, and citing relevant law journal articles. Granted, we are talking about Con Law, but there is just so much some law professor can do with this subject.

[Neff]

What I've learned: the Supreme Court always and only decides based on political convictions.

[Christina]

Hopefully I learned enough to pass the exam.

[Brenden]

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series) by Kathleen M. Sullivan (2004)

[NFN Päv · Rating 3 out of 5]

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/88...#