Obama taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

[lostinblue 1,989]

President Obama is a former president of the Harvard Law Review and famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago. But did he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?

That's a fair question after Mr. Obama's astonishing remarks on Monday at the White House when he ruminated for the first time in public on the Supreme Court's recent ObamaCare deliberations. "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," he declared.

Presidents are paid to be confident about their own laws, but what's up with that "unprecedented"? In Marbury in 1803, Chief Justice John Marshall laid down the doctrine of judicial review. In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of those laws were passed by a "democratically elected" legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by "strong" majorities.

As it happens, probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act. Readers may recall that the law was dragooned through a reluctant Senate without a single GOP vote and barely the 60 votes needed to break a filibuster. Despite a huge Democratic majority in the House, it passed by only 219-212.

One reason the law may be overturned is because it was rushed through Congress without a standard "severability" clause that says that the rest of the law stands if one part is judged unconstitutional. Congress jammed it into law because it became ever more unpopular the more the public looked at it. The law is even less popular today than it was on the day it passed in 2010.

Mr. Obama's remarks suggest he is joining others on the left in warning the Justices that they will pay a political price if they dare to overturn even part of the law. As he runs for re-election, Mr. Obama's inner community organizer seems to be winning out over the law professor.

Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page 11

A version of this article appeared April 3, 2012, on page A14 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304023504577320013259347408.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

The president is stunningly ignorant about constitutional law. More amature hour in the whitehouse folks. Maybe now it is time to see his school records.

[^_^ 5,021]

he never taught #######. librul lies!!!! he's kenyan.

[bigdog 376]

Go figure

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

Obumer is pushing his luck.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

How dare Obama use the same argument against judicial activism that the RWN's habitually use.

[lostinblue 1,989]

How dare Obama use the same argument against judicial activism that the RWN's habitually use.

If 4 members of the SC vote to uphold Obamacare, THAT would be judicial activism

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If 4 members of the SC vote to uphold Obamacare, THAT would be judicial activism

lol... So that's how it works.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

lol... So that's how it works.

4 Justices voting in support of Tyranny like the other Nazis in congress did? Yeah, that's how it works.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

The nutters have spoken.

[luckytxn 2,265]

He probably only taught Constitutional law from FDR on.

[TBoneTX 46,122]

He probably only taught Constitutional law from FDR on.

Woodrow Wilson is probably his hero.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/why-the-right-turned-its-back-on-the-individual-mandate.print.html

[luckytxn 2,265]

Woodrow Wilson is probably his hero.

I am pretty sure that he is partial to FDR.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Look up 1993—the Consumer Choice Health Security Act and the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, wingnuts.

[luckytxn 2,265]

Look up 1993—the Consumer Choice Health Security Act and the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act, wingnuts.

Why?