Obama did not teach Marbury v Madison! Who knew ?! Also - we have the Holder/Obama response addressed to the District Court.

Update conclusion:  

It does not sound as if the Administration has backed down at all.  The implicit claim in the response letter from Holder,  is this:  the Court should step down when faced with passing judgment on legislation deemed to be in line with with the Commerce Clause.  

Original post:

We learn from the young man to the left, Thom Lambert, a one time student of Obama and currently,  law professor at the University of Missouri Law School,  that Obama did not teach Constitutional law,  in general.  He did not teach on the significance of Marbury v. Madison,  a case judged  back in 1803 and used to forever justify the function and duty of the High Court to review and,  on occasion,  strike down law that stands contrary to the Constitution. 

At Chicago University,  Obama taught “Con Law III.”    You should know that “Con Law I” covers structural (basic) constitutional issues.  By contrast,  Con Law III covers the 14^th Amendment as relates to Judicial review, federalism (how the united states figure in constitutional law) and the separation of power. It is that part of constitutional studies  radicalized community reformers love to consider.  

You will want to read Lambert's article of yesterday,  in the Truth on the Market blog. 


On a related matter,  

Fox News gives us this brief review of what happened on Monday of this week:  

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law—while repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.

“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,” Obama said.

What is disturbing with Obama's statement is his characterization of the legislative victory,  an insulting summary of revisionist history,  especially in his claim the health care/societal reformation bill was passed by a "strong majority."  If not a lie,  this is stupid wrong.  The fact of the matter is this:  the Senate had to revert to "reconciliation" to get the bill passed in that house (requiring only 51 votes instead of 60), and the House of Representatives,  with its 56 vote super Democrat majority, passed ObamaCare with only 8 votes to spare . . . . . . .  hardly a "strong majority" in either case.  In addition,  the nation has opposed this bill from day one and, today,  more want its demise than every before.

As if his revisionist history was not bad enough,  certainly his branding of the Supreme Court as an "unelected group of people" sent the Chicago organizer's comments over the top.  If you are reading this and don't understand the implications of this insult,  well,  you are part of the problem.

Update:


From Holder's letter to the district court (comments may not be the order of appearance,  as seen in the letter itself - but I tried).  You can read the three pages here  link.  


Quotes from Holder's letter:  

"If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business  deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so."

"While duly recognizing the courts' authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress."

"The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the appropriateness of reliance on the political branches' policy choices and judgments . . . . the courts  try not to nullify more of a legislature 's work than is necessary" because they recognize that'" [a]ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people."

"These principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere . . . . . [in] particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress [as a third branch of government – blog owner]  has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends."

With these excepts, it does not sound as if the Administration has backed down at all.  The implicit claim in the response letter from Holder,  is this:  the Court should step down when faced with passing judgment on legislation deemed to be in line with the Commerce Clause.