1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Finally a former law student of Barack Obama's, comes out and goes public

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Apr 5, 2012.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Jan 23, 2009
    Likes Received:
    San Diego, CA
    I'm pretty astonished. Though Obama was widely advertised as a Professor (or at least a lecturer) on Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago, I never heard of a single person say "Yes, I knew Barry back then, he was my (friend/teacher/roommate/boss/employee/drinking buddy/date/rival/etc.)". The man went through an entire PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, which usually exposes everyone they have EVER known (isn't that right, Herman Cain?)... but no associate or acquaintance of Barack Obama from his college days was ever brought out.

    Finally, now we know he had at least one. Here's someone who says he was a student in Obama's class, back then.

    Turns out that Obama's "field" of Constitutional Law was pretty narrowly defined: He only talked about cases arising from the 14th amendment. That's like advertising yourself as a race-car designer, and later we find out that all you ever designed was the left rear wheel and the bumper.

    It's strange we didn't know this before the election.

    It seems that this law student of the President-to-be, is less than impressed with Obama's recent pronouncements about the Supreme Court and its functions.



    My Professor, My Judge, and the Doctrine of Judicial Review

    Posted by Thom Lambert on April 3, 2012

    Imagine if you picked up your morning paper to read that one of your astronomy professors had publicly questioned whether the earth, in fact, revolves around the sun. Or suppose that one of your economics professors was quoted as saying that consumers would purchase more gasoline if the price would simply rise. Or maybe your high school math teacher was publicly insisting that 2 + 2 = 5. You’d be a little embarrassed, right? You’d worry that your colleagues and friends might begin to question your astronomical, economic, or mathematical literacy.

    Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the Supreme Court to “overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” Putting aside the “strong majority” nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas. Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”

    I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.

    Fortunately, another bit of my educational background somewhat mitigates the reputational damage inflicted by the President’s unfortunate comments. This morning, the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, called the President’s bluff.

    Here’s a bit of transcript from this morning’s oral argument in Physicians Hospital of America v. Sebelius, a case involving a challenge to the Affordable Care Act:

    I must say, I’m pretty dang proud of Judge Smith right now. And I’m really looking forward to reading that three-page, single-spaced letter.
    Pandora likes this.
  2. dogtowner

    dogtowner Moderator Staff Member

    Dec 24, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Wandering around
    Is there not always less than billed when it comes to our affirmative action president ?
  3. Gipper

    Gipper Well-Known Member

    Nov 17, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Winter Wonderland
    The great Charles K summarizes the whole thing very well...

    See its partisanship if the court rules against Obamacare. Its not partisanship when only Ds vote for Obamacare and no Rs do according to libs and Ds. CRAZY!!!


Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice