For someone who claims to be a constitutional legal scholar, The One seems to have slept through – or most likely ignored all together – the class on the concept of co-equal branches of government. It’s also nebulous as to whether or not he was in class the day separation of powers was taught as well.

Today The One took to the rose garden podium and boldly declared that the Supreme Court should avoid the appearance of judicial activism and vote to uphold the government takeover of all things health related. Declared The One:

We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. The reason is because in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional.


To quote the old country song, “wishin’ don’t make it so.” Perhaps The One was too busy hobnobbing with the Russians whilst the Supremes were debating whether or not there was constitutional precedence to uphold the 2,700+ page monstrosity. Never mind the fact at least one Supreme declared that being forced to read such a bill would violate the Eighth Amendment. The best anyone could do trying to find precedent for forcing a citizen to buy a product or service was a Revolutionary War statute requiring conscripts to show up with a musket and ammunition.

I’m no legal scholar, but I’m hard pressed to find one who believes the Solicitor General acquitted himself well on the nation’s biggest legal stage last week. Never mind that. The One has declared his signature piece of legislation to meet constitutional muster and laughs in the general direction of the Supreme Court when they question his wisdom.

Ummm…excuse me, Mr. President. There’s just one slight problem with your argument: Determining the constitutionality of any given statue is the express domain of the Supreme Court of the United States. Yeah, those nine people in black robes who show up each January (well most of them do) to your State of the Union Show. Those same nine legal scholars you saw fit to upbraid on national television because they dared to disagree with you on campaign finance law. Oh, and your declaration that tossing it out would be “unprecedented, extraordinary step” based solely on the fact that said statute was passed by a majority of both houses of Congress? I guess you really don’t understand how the constitution is set up. Tossing out badly written, poorly worded and, oh yeah, unconstitutional statutes is what the Supremes do. It’s their job. You keep using that word “unprecedented”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Maybe it wasn’t such a good idea to call the Supremes out on the national stage. It might turn out that The One isn’t the only one keeping score.

Comments