Emanuel CrunchTime for Constitutional Law, Twenty second Edition

When it’s exam time you need the right information in the right format to study efficiently and effectively. Emanuel CrunchTime® is the perfect tool for exam studying. With flowcharts and capsule summaries of major points of law and critical issues, as well as exam tips for identifying common traps and pitfalls, sample exam and essay questions with model answers – you will be prepared for your next big test. Emanuel CrunchTime® for Constitutional Law, Twenty-Second Edition, focuses on those topics that are important in today’s courses on Constitutional Law.  ABOUT THE BOOK—TOOLS TO SUCCEED The Capsule Summary provides a quick reference summary of the key concepts covered in the full Outline. The detailed course Outline with black letter principles supplements your casebook reading throughout the semester and gives structure to your own outline. The Quiz Yourself feature includes a series of short-answer questions and sample answers to help you test your knowledge of the chapter’s content. Exam Tips alert you to issues and commonly used fact patterns found on exams. A Casebook Correlation Chart that correlates each section in the Outline with the pages covering that topic in the major casebooks. The flow charts walk you through a series of yes/no questions that can be used to analyze any question on the exam: perfect for visual learners. This new edition of Emanuel CrunchTime® forConstitutional Law expands coverage to include: Trump v. U.S., where the Court decided that the President has immunity from criminal prosecution for a wide variety of official acts, and gets the benefit of a presumption of immunity as long as the President acts within the “outer perimeter” of his official responsibilities. U.S. v. Skrmetti, where the Court upheld, as not violating the Equal Protection Clause’s principles on gender classifications, a state’s decision to ban certain medical procedures that enabled transgendered minors to reverse their biological sex, while allowing those same procedures to be performed on minors for reasons other than sex-reversal. U.S. v. Rahimi, where the Court decided that a modern law does not violate the Second Amendment as long as the law is “relevantly similar” to some 1791-era gun-control law. This meant that the modern state law there (prohibiting persons currently facing a domestic violence protective order from owning guns) did not violate the Amendment, since the two eras’ gun-control laws had a “similar purpose,” and placed a “similar burden” on the gun owner.  Mahmoud v. Taylor, holding that when a public-school district’s curriculum contains materials exposure to which substantially interferes with a parent’s right to direct the religious upbringing of their child, the parent’s free exercise of religion is violated unless the district (1) provides prior notice of the use of these materials, and (2) allows each parent to “opt-out”, i.e., withdraw their child from the classroom when the materials are discussed. Moody v. NetChoice, in which the Court held that when government prohibits a private social-media service from censoring user posts based on their content, government has violated the service’s right to free expression.