I am enjoying Con Law II more than I did Con Law I. Maybe because we are tackling issues like racial discrimination and freedom of speech more this semester
I think the proper frame of mind (at least the one I had) is that the course isn't really about "what the law is" as much as it is about "who gets to make the law." That's why cases that are 200 years old, such as Marbury v. Madison, are still good law and important and relevant even today.I think of it this way: there are 5 potential parties with conflicting powers or rights. Federal Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, the States, and Individuals with rights protected under the various amendments. The cases, no matter what the underlying law in question is, almost always is really dealing with resolving the conflict between at least 2 of those parties about who, if anyone, can make the underlying law. The court then generally develops tests and analysis to resolve the conflict. These are what you can then apply to hypos or test questions.It does seem a bit more alive when the underlying laws are issues you can relate to today.