I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself.

When a judge assumes the power to decide which distinctions made in a statute are legitimate and which are not, he assumes the power to disapprove of any and all legislation, because all legislation makes distinctions

Modernity, the child of the Enlightenment, failed when it became apparent that the good society cannot be achieved by unaided reason.

A society deadened by a smothering network of laws while finding release in moral chaos is not likely to be either happy or stable.

The right to procreate is not guaranteed, explicitly or implicitly, by the Constitution

[The current governing judicial philosophy is:] If you want something passionately enough, it is guaranteed by the Constitution. No need to fiddle around gathering votes from recalcitrant citizens.

I don't think the Constitution is studied almost anywhere, including law schools. In law schools, what they study is what the court said about the Constitution. They study the opinions. They don't study the Constitution itself.