It is said that our president once taught constitutional law at the prestigious University of Chicago.
That's what "it's said."
So, based on recent events, wouldn't it be appropriate for some mainstream reporter to ask if he really taught constitutional law there or anywhere?
Because a lot of knowledgeable Americans are having serious doubts.
Including James Taranto*:
We were half-joking yesterday when we asked if Barack Obama slept through his Harvard Law class on Marbury v. Madison, the 1803 case in which the U.S. Supreme Court first asserted its power to strike down unconstitutional laws. It turns out it's no joke: The president is stunningly ignorant about constitutional law.If Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago I was a pole dancer in Poughkeepsie.
[I]n citing Lochner, the president showed himself to be in over his head.
The full name of the case, Lochner v. New York, should be a sufficient tip-off. In Lochner the court invalidated a state labor regulation on the ground that it violated the "liberty of contract," which the court held was an aspect of liberty protected by the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause. (The legal doctrine at issue, "substantive due process," refers to the meaning of "life, liberty and property" under the Due Process Clause.)
Lochner, which was effectively reversed in a series of post-New Deal decisions, did not involve a federal law--contrary to the president's claim--and thus had nothing to do with the Commerce Clause, which concerns only the powers of Congress.
It's appalling that any president would have the effrontery to lecture the Supreme Court about a pending case. It's astounding that this president, who was once a professor of constitutional law at an elite university, would do so in such an ignorant fashion.
You fellas in the mainstream press care to get off your dead asses - finally - and check this dude out?
* Apologies to Mr. Taranto for putting words in his mouth and thoughts in his brain without justification.