What kind of constitutional law did Barack Obama teach at the University of Chicago before he joined the Illinois Legislature to vote “present?”
At a press conference Monday with the presidents of Mexico and Canada he called the court’s conservatives judicial activists, echoing liberal New York Sen. Chuck Shumer from the Sunday talk shows. Obviously that is the talking points plan by the Democrats.
Obama went one step further and questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law passed by Congress. See Marbury v. Madison, decided by the Supreme Court in 1803. The court has been deciding on the constitutionality of laws ever since. Congress is not some infallible font of wisdom and neither is the president, whether his name is Obama or anyone else.
Duh! Deciding the constitutionality of laws is the Supreme Court’s only job. One would think that would be explained in Constitutional Law 101 at law schools, if not something talked about in the first few weeks of school. Obama, who was editor of the Harvard Law Review, ought to know better. If not, then he is devaluing the Harvard law degree.
Instead, he is attempting to intimidate the Supreme Court much as he did two years ago at the State of the Union Address, warning them not to take “an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” “Strong” was 219-212 vote in the House and a 1 vote margin in the Senate, with no Republicans voting for it. Strong or weak is irrelevant if the law is unconstitutional. As Chief Justice John C. Marshall wrote in 1803, “A law repugnant to the Constitution is void.”
Obama is sounding less like a president and more like the whiner in chief.