There is one concept as you study ConLaw that is absolutely essential, and perhaps surprisingly, it isn't even found in the constitutional text! Over the years, as the Supreme Court has evaluated the myriad of issues that come up in the constitutional context, the justices have formulated three tests – strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and rational basis. These tests, and their variations, form the lifeblood of constitutional analysis.
Your job in ConLaw is to know those tests cold, and know what governmental actions trigger each one. If you can do that, you are well on your way to understanding ConLaw.
But that brings up an interesting question. These tests are highly useful tools, but they are nowhere in the constitutional text. Do you think these three tests are a valid tool of constitutional interpretation?