Yes
Only relevant parts
IL
Yes. Con law was a required class.
lawyer. Don’t need to practice any more - I’ve got it down! 
Yes
In its entirety; took a law school class on it, actually.
NJ
Con Law was required; I also took a few advanced Con Law classes to enhance my skills as a volunteer attorney for the ACLU.
Practicing lawyer.
If you want a discussion on that crazy woman’s 10 Commandments, I’m welcome to it, however, as you can see by these posts, she is factually wrong on all counts. She might have a more nuanced argument, though I doubt it.
As for the rest of the questions, my experience, from what I remember, mirrors Mr. Excellent’s and Hello Again’s experience.
I have always wondered why MA judges never seem to refer to the constitution-they regularly violate the separation of powers clause, and also have little respect for the bill of Rights.
I also think the framers of the Constitution never envisioned the way that judges have taken over the functions of the legislative branch!
Yes, of course.
Yes, but not in law school.
KY
Studied both. I think you’re creating a false dichotomy here – a great deal of the case law is interpreting Constitutional principles and issues.
Practicing lawyer.
Oh my laws yes. Used to tutor Con law.
Yes, but mostly out of curiosity. It’s considerably longer and more boring than the U.S. Constitution. The state Bill of Rights is neat, but there’s a lot of stuff about taxation and airport authorities and hospital districting that’s about as interesting as watching paint dry.
Texas.
You study both, but I wouldn’t say one or the other is more emphasized. To understand Constitutional law you have to understand the many decades of case law interpreting it, but you also have to be familiar with the text to understand what it is that’s being interpreted. The term “case law” also covers a lot of law having little or nothing to do with the Constitution.
Former federal judicial law clerk, now practicing lawyer.
It looks like this is remaining more or less a poll, so I’m going to correct my mistake and shove it on back. And there it’ll stay even if y’all start arguing. So there!
Moved from GD to IMHO.
YES
2. Have you read your states Constitution.
Yes - But I believe that state constitutions are not emphasized in law schools, just as state law is not. I read Ohio’s Constitution as part of a legislation class (one of my favorites in law school)
Ohio
Both - Can’t imagine how one would do otherwise.
Studying for the Ohio bar.
While you seem to be trying to fight the good fight, you might be tilting at windmills. The person you are debating seems to have little grounding in reality, I would be rather surprised if that person had attended law school and actually knew what she was talking about. Besides, the British/American historical tradition has always been to litigious, nothing new under the sun here and it beats solving the dispute with weapons.
I posted the results of the survey and have not been responded to. Though she did respond to someone else in the thread, so it seems it’s going to be nowhere. Thanks for the help guys.
Umm, your location field really doesn’t tell me anything.
Sorry it was Philadelphia went I posted… 
Yes
Yes, as needed. It’s pretty good actually.
Washington
as others have said, but I can add that it is also a pretty important part of the three bar exams I have taken (WA, AK, and MT). Lawyers definately need to understand the Constitution. And, in my short career as a Judge Pro Tem, I actually had a few constiutional issues come up (confrontation clause, search and seizure, etc)
Practicing lawyer