How about this for an idea. Let's say you want to check on what you know about Con-Law. Where would you look?
Why not start with the most recent leading cases? We all know that the Court refers back to earlier decisions, reflecting earlier philosophies, when accepting, rejecting or modifying what has gone before to either continue the development on track or to forge a new trail. So why not select today's leading cases and do a retrospective review?
Or, you could select a few early leading cases and travel forward, but there you'd run into many by-roads.
Below are a few leading recent cases. If you take the time to understand every word of these, you'll be well on your way to learning the guts of Con-law (no need to remind me I've left out a lot of areas...this is a blog, not Laurence Tribe's treatise on Con-law).
Lawrence v. Texas (2003), for the meaning of liberty and freedom in America. The operative principle, as in free expression law, is that in order to protect the core, you must protect the fringe. That's why Nazis march in Skokie and the Klan may burn a cross for its members (but not to threaten others).
No one, especially gays, will want to see essential human rights described as fringe, but that's not what I just did. Fringe, of course, refers not to individual rights, but to the marginalization of gays as respected members of society traditionally.
Gonzales v. Raich (2004), as to Congress's Commerce Power, federalism, Lopez (School Gun case, 1995), Morrison v. Olsen (VAWA, 2000), Wickard v. Filburn (home grown and used wheat, 1942 or so).
Grutter and Gratz, the U. of Michigan cases (2003), official efforts to deal with race relations on an affirmative action basis in higher education at least.
I'm going to reserve First Amendment for later, but for those who'd like to read ahead, see Gerald Stone's Perilous Times on free expression in wartime, and Floyd Abrams's "Speaking Freely" on developments since Vietnam. Mark Tushnet's A Court Divided, an account of the Rehnquist Court is wonderful for putting into perspective both politically and legally what's been going on lately. Linda Greenhouse's Becoming Justice Blackmun is the book on Roe v. Wade and the abortion controversy.
If you want the baseline on what you can't say, Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) and Virginia v. Black (2003). Dates are approximate, since blogging is from memory. We never want to let the immediacy of blogging to be interrupted by looking up cites.
In recent years the Court has developed doctrines to support other doctrines. The flying buttress theory, one might call it. You know, those lateral supports that kept tall cathedral walls from collapsing when they went so high.
I'm thinking of the right to, or of, expressive association, as in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, and the Hurley Boston Parade case. Further discussion must await continuing exam grading, a sorrowful task indeed.
The City of Boerne v. Flores (1997), Congress's Amendment 14, Sec. 5 power to enforce constitutional rights, such as religious rights of the First Amemdment as in RFRA, RLUIPA, and a new bill providing for religious freedom in the workplace. I don't know why so many students had such problems recognizing this issue on the recent exam, when there were those who did. I'm sure I referred to this subject in class more than once. Congruence and proportionality? Congress making a good record of need and fitting legislative response? Narrowing the Nation's Power by John T. Noonan, Jr.? Puh-leeze!