Thom Lambert: Obama taught me con law

It doesn’t quite have the ring of I Was a Communist for the FBI, but Professor Thom Lambert’s post drawing on his days as a student of Barack Obama at the University of Chicago Law School has a certain oomph to to it this week. Professor Lambert didn’t title the post “Barack Obama taught me con law,” but he could have. Professor Lambert also clerked for the Fifth Circuit judge (Jerry Smith) who ordered the Obama administration to address the doctrine of judicial review in a three-page, single-spaced letter to the court, so he emphasized the harmonic convergence that uniquely qualified him to comment on events this week. Professor Lambert writes:

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.

Professor Lambert then quotes the colloquy between Judge Smith and the hapless Department of Justice attorney who, in a spectacular piece of bad timing, appeared before the Fifth Circuit this week in an Obamcare case after Obama’s now infamous expostulation on the Obamacare case pending before the Supreme Court. Professor Lambert comments: “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.” Professor Lambert, how did you do in that con law course?

UPDATE: Professor Lambert appeared on Fox News this morning. The video is below.