Did the President Really Say That?

What is it with our illustrious, “constitutional scholar” president that he does not seem to understand even the basic tenants of the Constitution in which he was allegedly schooled? What did Mr. Obama actually learn while he was at Harvard? His ignorance of the Constitution brings his entire educational history into question.

As background, let me first remind you of the fact that Mr. Obama instructed his administration through the use of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to attempt to force religious institutions to abide by government regulations when hiring employees. Obama's stand was that religious institutions have no right to ask that prospective employees adhere to certain religious beliefs upon which said institutions themselves rest. Again, Mr. Obama studied as a constitutional lawyer, served as the editor for the Harvard Law Record, and held the title of “senior lecturer” at the University of Chicago Law School where he presumably taught constitutional law. One wonders what he was learning, writing about and teaching during those years. The point is that with all his so-called knowledge of the Constitution, Mr. Obama received a major slap down by the Supreme Court when the Court, admitted by all to be clearly divided along opposite ideological lines, ruled by an astounding unanimous 9-0 decision against the Obama administration and for the Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School in the case referenced above. This makes one wonder what our Constitutional-Scholar-in-Chief was thinking about when he tried to press this case forward. Additionally, it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our Constitution and puts his teaching on such in question. Again, a 9-0 unanimous decision against is not merely a loss—it is a complete repudiation and a major “beat down.” Now I’m wondering if maybe Ruth Ginsberg learned constitutional law from Mr. Obama after reading of her advice to the Egyptians that they should probably not use our Constitution as a model when drafting their new constitution. Funny thing is that the U.S. Constitution is the most envied and long-standing document of its kind in the history of the world, but one of our own Supreme Court Justices does not consider it worthy of emulation.

To add to the lack of respect that Justice Ginsberg, a Clinton appointee, exhibited in the Egyptian episode it also becomes apparent that our current president does not understand the Constitution he swore to uphold. Aren’t we in a lovely pickle?

Is one such “faux pas” over the Constitution as documented above enough to substantiate the opinion I’ve registered concerning our President and his lack of either respect or understanding of our founding document? For me the answer is yes. Some others might ask for a little more proof and I understand. The fact is that proof has been supplied by Mr. Obama himself.

Maybe not everyone is aware that the Supreme Court took up the case of the constitutionality of what has become known as Obamacare last week. That’s not really that unusual; that’s what the Supreme Court does. It’s called judicial review. Now lest one think that the Court just arbitrarily takes it upon itself to go rooting around and looking for things it does not like, that is not the case. If it was, the president’s response to the case might be understandable. What has happened, however, in this case is that a number of states, organizations and individuals have gone to court questioning whether the federal government has the right to run rough shod over the American people and the individual states in the way that it has in the case of Obamacare. The challenges to the law rose through the lower courts and were ultimately accepted for review by the Supreme Court.

OK, now about beat-down No. 2. Regarding the Supreme Court’s consideration last week of the constitutionality of Obamacare, Mr. Obama had this to say:

“Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

The health-care law, what you and I know as Obamacare, was passed by a final vote in the House by 219 to 212. All Republicans joined by 34 Democrats voted against passage. I’m not sure what world you would have to live in to call a seven-vote margin a strong majority. The fact that Mr. Obama was going to rid Washington of partisan politics and win the support of Congress and the Senate from both sides of the aisle seems to have been forgotten when the president refers to a bill passed by a partisan vote in the House that included not one Republican and drew a "nay” from 34 Democrats. What could be more divisive and partisan that that?

To the point, is there a precedent for overturning such a law or would its being ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court truly be unprecedented as stated by Mr. Obama? The precedent for overturning law was first established in 1803 when the High Court declared a portion of the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. I won’t bore you with details but let it suffice to say that there is nothing at all unprecedented about the Supreme Court taking up the question of the constitutionality of Obamacare as it has done in many other instances concerning questionable laws. So why did the president make such an outrageous remark as well as suggesting that a seven-vote difference was a strong majority?

That is exactly what the 5^th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans wants to know. In fact, that court demanded a three-page, single-spaced reply from the Department of Justice explaining the president’s remarks. That exchange occurred between Judge Jerry Smith and Justice Department lawyer Dana Lydia Kaersvang. An article posted by USA Digital Services refers to that exchange as the DOJ being "taken to the woodshed" over the president’s remarks; I call it beat-down No. 2 for a president who taught constitutional law but seems to lack some basic understanding about how the Constitution is upheld and administered in our constitutional republic.

Finally, here’s something to consider; if the Supreme Court overturns or guts Obamacare, admittedly, Mr. Obama’s signal piece of legislation, the president has hinted that he will make the Court a central issue in the coming fall’s presidential campaign. The problem here is that such actions indeed raise troubling questions about a president’s broader responsibilities to the constitutional order he has sworn to uphold. So much for our constitutional law scholar president and what he actually thinks, or thinks he knows, about the Constitution.