A recent public opinion poll taken right after the oral arguments at the Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of Obamacare shows a rather high favorable view of the Court. Analysts say this could be related to the pointed questioning the Obama administration’s solicitor general received by some of the justices. By most accounts, they shredded his arguments. In his defense, he was trying to defend the indefensible constitutionally.
I’ve often stated my resistance to government by opinion polls, and I remain steadfast in that position. Yet it is comforting at times to see the general public waking up to some of the travesties that have been promoted as constitutional. In this case, the Obama administration is attempting to use the Commerce Clause of the Constitution as covering for its unprecedented power grab. This is a classic example of twisting the document’s meaning into nonsense and, in the process, shredding the document itself.
Then we have the spectacle of the administration touting the president’s prowess at interpreting the Constitution, citing his time as a constitutional law professor. Let’s get one thing straight: he was never a fulltime professor, but only an adjunct brought in to teach occasionally. I have nothing against adjuncts; they are essential. In fact, I was one once. But just being an adjunct professor teaching a law class once in a while is not the supreme qualification for being an expert. Further, most of his law education was of the “living Constitution” variety, where the original wording and intent are discarded. Consequently, I’m not impressed by anyone proclaiming Obama as an authority on constitutional law. From what I’ve been able to glean of his take on the Constitution, I’d say he’s anything but an authority. He has some more lessons to learn, starting with the established maxim that the Supreme Court can rule on the constitutionality of a federal law.
May the Court, in this instance, rule wisely.