Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism features straightforward and informal text that is never simplistic. Its unique, time-tested "Examples and Explanations" pedagogy combines textual material with well-written and comprehensive examples, explanations, and questions to test students' comprehension and provide practice in applying information to fact patterns. The questions (in which there are often a variety of issues in play) are similar to those on a law school or bar examination. A problem-oriented guide takes students through the principal doctrines of constitutional law that are covered in a typical course. Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism is designed to help students think about the larger issues of constitutional law with both depth and perception. Part of a two-volume set (with a corresponding text on Individual Rights,) these books compose a foundation in the doctrines and methods of constitutional law and constitutional argument. The organization parallels and complements any major constitutional law casebook. Legal concepts and principles appear in easily-digestible sections, followed by examples and analysis that illustrate how to apply them in hypothetical situations. That comes from the strong authorship, as these authors have more than sixty years combined experience teaching Constitutional Law. The Sixth Edition features updated examples and explanations and incorporates recent important decisions from the Supreme Court's October 2009, 2010 and 2011 terms. They include Bond v. United States (2011) - individuals have standing to raise 10th Amendment challenges to federal laws under which they are being prosecuted, for principles of federalism are designed to protect individuals as well as states; Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn (2011) - state taxpayers lacked standing under Flast v. Cohen to challenge a state law that provides tax credits for contributions made to organizations that then use those funds to subsidize religious education; Camreta v. Greene (2011) - an Article III case or controversy still exists where a government worker who prevailed in a § 1983 action based on qualified immunity wishes to appeal the lower court's ruling that plaintiff's constitutional rights were violated, if the worker is in a position where he would otherwise be subject to the lower court's ruling; Ashcroft v. al-Kidd (2011) - qualified immunity shielded former U.S. Attorney General from damages in a Bivens action where the constitutional principles governing the detention of terrorists were not clearly established at the time he acted, regardless of his personal motives; Reichle v. Howards (Oct. Term 2011, No. 11-262) - whether Secret Service agents have absolute or qualified immunity from a 1st Amendment retaliatory arrest claim brought by a person who made unsolicited physical contact with Vice President Cheney; Los Angeles County v. Humphries (2010) - in a § 1983 action against a municipality, the same custom or policy requirements that apply in suits seeking damages likewise apply in suits for prospective injunctive relief; Connick v. Thompson (2011) - a municipality may be sued under § 1983 based on its alleged failure to train its employees only where it is shown the municipality acted with deliberate indifference, usually requiring proof of similar past violations that it chose to ignore; Virginia Office For Pr
