Bluff called, gauntlet thrown – the beginning of the unravelling of Obama's authority

Posted on April 3, 2012 by


Apparently, Justice Alito is not the only person who openly questions President Obama’s understanding of the Constitution.

Remember when he was caught rebuking the President’s denunciation of Citizens United under his breath during the State of the Union Address?

Well, yesterday, Obama went even further. In regards to the pending SCOTUS decision on Obamacare, he said he was “confident” the Court would 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.”

And that, as they say on the TV, is when things got interesting.

Appeals court fires back at Obama’s comments on health care case

Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented — since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise — despite the president’s remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

This statement by Obama has been so universally panned as wrong that serious questions have surfaced over just how well the former Constitutional Law professor actually knows the Constitution. Even the mainstream media are scratching their heads over this one. Check out the headline yesterday in the Wall Street Journal:

Obama vs. Marbury v. Madison

The President needs a remedial course in judicial review.

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.

Things are getting so bad that there are rumors that he already knows the outcome of the vote of the justices:

Has Kagan or another liberal Justice leaked SCOTUS Friday Obamacare vote to Obama?


The theory goes that Obama, knowing somehow that the law will be struck down 5-4, is attempting to influence one or more justice (Kennedy is a likely target) to change their vote after the preliminary polling is done. It speaks to the desperation of this administration that, though unlikely, this appears to be a perfectly plausible explanation for Obama’s behavior.

It really is astonishing to see the judiciary at all levels show such contempt for the President and his command of the legalities of this case. Federal judges at all levels are now on record, throwing down the gauntlet and demanding that President Obama explain himself and where he comes up with his understanding of our laws.

In the high stakes poker game of determining the constitutionality of Obamacare, the President has gone all in. His bluff has been called. The Constitution of the United States allows us to give the Royal Flush to the POTUS, who is holding nothing but jokers.

The fear is what will be done out of desperation to protect this administration-defining legislation.