An Open Letter to Professor Obama

Dear Mr. President,

Supposedly, you are some sort of constitutional scholar.  At the very least, you can read, you can write, and despite being merely some sort of guest lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School, you once famously referred to yourself as a “Constitutional Law professor.”

Ringing a bell so far, Mr. President? Great.

My Juris Doctor is from the Rutgers School of Law in Camden, New Jersey, and while Rutgers-Camden is hardly Harvard Law School, within the first three days of Constitutional Law class those who did not already know of and understand Marbury v. Madison–perhaps the single most important decision in the history of the United States Supreme Court–were nonetheless introduced to it ad nauseum.

In Marbury, the United States Supreme Court held that federal courts across our nation not only have the authority, but also the duty, to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress–including statutes and treaties–and to designate as void those acts of Congress which countermand the United States Constitution.  The term you’re searching for between those ears of yours, Mr. President, is “judicial review.”  And, while it has been nearly two years since I opened up a Constitutional Law book and can now debate divorce and family law in South Carolina better than I can the Constitution, I recall enough from law school and bar exam study to know that the doctrine of “judicial review” is now settled law.

In other words, since the landmark Marbury decision came down in 1803 from the very Court you belittle and smear as “unelected” and “activist,” and because of the doctrine of “judicial review” set forth in that holding, federal courts in the United States of America have the power–and duty–to review laws passed by Congress, decide whether or not those laws either comport with our Constitution or countermand it, and either uphold those laws that pass constitutional muster or declare void those laws that do not.

Not a difficult concept, Mr. President.  Not a difficult concept for a first-year law student at Rutgers-Camden, and certainly not a difficult concept for a Harvard Law grad who lectured on Constitutional Law at University of Chicago Law School and later went on to deceive a nation into crowning him president of the United States.  This ain’t race-baiting or class warfare, Mr. President, but Marbury and judicial review should nonetheless certainly be in your wheelhouse.

So, what’s the problem?  Earlier today, according to Fox News and other sources, this apparently happened:

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law — while repeatedly saying he’s “confident” it will be upheld.

The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an “unelected group of people” could overturn a law approved by Congress.

“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,” Obama said.

Those statements are so indicative of ignorance of not only Constitutional Law but also basic civics that I don’t even know where to begin.

First, even a second-grader understands that the the United States Government is split into three separate branches in order to insulate one from another and provide checks and balances for each.  Of course, it is easy to comprehend how a totalitarian like yourself would have trouble distinguishing the lines between the various branches; after all, you have an established penchant for making illegitimate recess appointments and facilitating regulatory and other extra-legislative mechanisms designed to eschew and usurp the traditional role of the Legislative Branch — it should therefore come as no surprise that you are utterly incapable of understanding why Justices of the United States Supreme Court are indeed unelected.

The Justices of the United States Supreme Court are unelected, Mr. President, to insulate and protect them from the influence and derision of lawmakers and chief executives like you.

Second, that you would preemptively describe as “unprecedented” and “extraordinary” the prospective decision by the Supreme Court that your signature piece of legislation is unconstitutional and therefore void shows that your ignorance is surpassed only by your myopic inability to see past your political ideology and progressive goals.  According to the Congressional Research Service’s The Constitution of the United States, Analysis and Interpretation (the 2008 supplement, pages 163-164, in case you’re looking), as of 2010 the United States Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional and therefore void a whopping 163 acts of Congress.  You do know what “unprecedented” means, right?  The Supreme Court overturning ObamaCare would hardly be “unprecedented” — perhaps it could be “unprecedented, unless you count those previous 163 precedents.”  Of course, you and your administration has never been particularly good at counting or math.

Want to know what is “unprecedented,” Mr. President? Congress forcing free Americans into private contracts and penalizing those who disobey.  That’s unprecedented.  Want to know what else is “unprecedented,” Mr. President? A sitting president of the United States calling out the Justices of the United States Supreme Court during a State of the Union address.  That, too, is unprecedented; I can only pray to God that, come Election Day, you have been enjoined from having the chance to do so again.

At this point, Mr. President, just give up.  Please.  Every time you denigrate the Court and its Justices, who have more legal knowledge in their smallest toenail than you have in your entire body, you look more and more like the dullard that you apparently truly are.  No wonder you don’t want to release your school transcripts — any undergraduate student who fails to understand the most basic concept of Separation of Powers and any law student that fails to understand the settled doctrine of judicial review probably did not have marks worthy of tacking on the refrigerator door.

I understand that, ideologically, your signature piece of health care legislation is the perfect progressive fix.  I understand how it works.  I understand how it slowly but surely interferes with insurers’ ability to assess risk and thus slowly but surely facilitates an increase in premium costs, therefore driving more and more people to clamor for a government fix. It’s a brilliant political maneuver.

But it’s also unconstitutional.  In other words, it tramples upon the ideas enshrined in that old document that you swore an oath to uphold and defend.

And when the Justices of the United States Supreme Court tell you as much mere weeks before November’s election, it will not be because they are “unelected,” nor will it be because they somehow don’t understand the legislation.  The law simply runs afoul and improperly expands the scope of the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and no amount of “strong majority of a democratically elected Congress” will change that.

Wave the white flag, Mr. President.  Or, preferably, you can continue to make a fool of yourself.  In my Trial Advocacy class at Rutgers-Camden, after all, we were taught how do deal with opposing counsel who was floundering in front of a judge or jury: sit tight, smile, and just let the other side self-destruct.

Now, Rutgers-Camden is a fine school, but it sure ain’t Harvard.  Nevertheless, I’m the one who is sitting tight and smiling.

Good luck with your re-election.

 

Sincerely,

Jeffrey M. Schreiber, Esq.
Founder & Managing Editor, America’s Right

Share

Comments

  1. Bill C says:

    A brilliant articke, but the sum total of this administration can be summed up with a single 4 word sentence from your piece:

    “…a totalitarian like yourself…”

    Every thing he has ever done regarding the constitution and law school has been a ruse, designed to hide the fact that he is a totalitarian, intent on destroying the economy and this country.

  2. Randy Wills says:

    If I ever were to win the lottery, Jeff, one of the first things that I would do is fund AmericasRight to the extent that you could give up your day job and just pound this stuff out on a daily basis.

    Randy

  3. BackwardsBoy says:

    I concur and approve.

    You may add my name to this letter also.

  4. cali says:

    The BEST analysis ever!! Thank you!

    Let’s hope thissinks into the brain of this so-called ‘constitutional scholar’ and, rather than either threatening or bullying the Supreme Court into submission as he likes to do, he’ll wave the white flag as you aptly recommended.

    Again, thank you for saying what many of us want to, but can’t express as professionally as you did here!

  5. Lisa Michelle says:

    Powerful said!

  6. Sheldon Cooper says:

    BAZINGA!

  7. baldilocks says:

    A thing of beauty. Well-done!

  8. Anonymous says:

    I learned this stuff my senior year in High School in Government class. This president is unqualified and it needs to be dealt with.

  9. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Randy,

    I would love nothing more. That would be my plan, too. Thank you.

    Jeff

  10. firefirefire says:

    Well Said and shared on f/b

  11. Dan says:

    Outstanding!!

  12. i8bugs says:

    The idea that one needs to be a lawyer to determine if something is Constitutional or not is complete malarcky. The Constitution is just not that difficult.

  13. Jordan Bell says:

    No where in Article III of the Constitution does it mention Judicial Review. This was nothing more than a power grab by the Supreme Court, no different than the power grab our Executive branch is on. In this case, under Section 2, the Supreme Court has judicial power “to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party” as the States filed a lawsuit against the Federal government.

    As for the rest, I agree with you :)

  14. Bruce Hinton says:

    Beautifully, powerfully, expertly, intelligently written!!!

    I only wish I could claim it. My dormant, long-neglected blog which I will not mention here has a couple of concepts, (i.e. Das “Fodderland”), that I wish I could have articulated so well.

    Perhaps you would allow me to submit briefs on articles that need your touch…

    Anyway, THANKS for a great column.
    Bruce

  15. Charlie says:

    Absolutely delicious takedown! What a satisfying read. Thank you. That made my morning.

  16. dicentra says:

    Those statements are so indicative of ignorance of not only Constitutional Law but also basic civics that I don’t even know where to begin.

    You’re giving him way too much credit: never ascribe to ignorance what can be explained by an unbridled will to power.

    Obama knows damn good and well what judicial review is, what Marbury means, and that his words go counter to the letter and spirit of American jurisprudence. He also knows that the American public has been softened up nicely by the Left’s Long March though Education such that he can get away with as much prevarication as he likes without raising enough eyebrows to hurt his reelection chances.

    What’s foremost in his mind is that once the gubmint takes over healthcare, the Republic is over (and good riddance to it, see), so he’s willing to use every rhetorical trick in the book to sway public opinion—up to and including threats and bullying—just as he was trained to do his entire adult life.

    Leftists don’t use language to say what they believe to be true but what they believe to be useful, just as Alinsky prescribed, which means that it does us no good to rhetorically assume that Obama’s utterances reveal his state of understanding or even his beliefs (outside of the belief that he and his ought to be in charge).

    Name the lies and distortions for what they are: weapons of war against the Republic that forge the chains whereby a formerly free people are subjected to the Supreme Will of the State.

  17. BrendaK says:

    Excellent! Thank you; we’ll be passing this on in links at Facebook and various blogs.

    Now if only the President would read it — well, read it and actually understand it.

  18. Jeff Schreiber says:

    dicentra — VERY well put.

  19. Dee says:

    Well done, Jeff.

  20. blackbird says:

    I have printed off your excellent article and will pass it on. Thank you Mr. Schreiber.

  21. Jack Ott says:

    Jeff, this is a very well written and powerful article. It is very difficult to remain civil and respectful in the face of such apparent ignorance and incompetency. My belief, however, is that President Obama may not really be as dumb and bumbling as he usually appears, but rather that he is merely following a script planned and prepared by his handlers/puppet masters.

    Our job as conservatives is to convince America that, whether he really is an idiot or just a good actor is irrelevant; in either event, he has to go.

  22. Fuzzy says:

    Genius! Truly a joy to read (so much so that I found myself reading some of those amazingly well-crafted and rightly scathing sentences aloud).

  23. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Jack — you’re right. There is a nefarious angle here that I have touched upon before–see “Creating Chaos to Facilitate Failure” in the AR Essentials bin–but not so much here.

    As an aside, did I meet you when I was in Denver at BlogCon last November?

  24. Paul Mattfeld says:

    Very well said and written…you might want to fax a copy to thw White House.

    Yuo have to admit though, for a man who has never produced a state sealed birth certificate …he has come a long way as an “illegal?”.

    He has to go and take the “Czars” with him!

  25. WhataJOKE says:

    Are you people serious?
    What is basicaly being said by the president is that since the bill was passed by a majority of elected officials in the congress who are supposed to work for the PEOPLE, he cannot see the justices overturning something that was passed basically because the people asked their representatives to vote for it. That is how democracy works right?

    Keep letting the Fox News Fiction Machine spin your heads around.

  26. Jerry Crawley says:

    THINGS COULD BE WORSE…RE-ELECT HIM AND HE WILL PROVE IT!

  27. Jordan Bell says:

    To WhataJoke “That is how democracy works right?”

    Democracy is nothing more than 51% majority stealing from the 49% minority. It is mob rule. Our country was founded as a Republic, based on rule of law, not as a Democracy.

    Also, don’t forget that individual States have nullified Federal legislation before when the Federal government overstepped its constitutional authority. They can do it again.

  28. Sheldon Cooper says:

    WhataJoke, you are the freakin joke…. we are a constitutional republic, NOT a democracy. Take a Civics class.

  29. May Goodness Prevail (not B.O.) says:

    What comes to mind when reading…“unelected” and “activist,”…Barry, himself!

    Great article!

  30. Randy Wills says:

    To “whataJOKE”:

    No personal insults from me, but I have to ask you how you would feel about an obvious attack on the Constitutional division of powers if you disagreed the the sitting President? It’s O.K. to disagree ideologically with policy decisions, regardless of the Party in control, but any blatant attack by the highest elected official in government on the foundational principles of our Constitutional form of government is tantamont to sedition.

    And keep it civil, please. Arguments are much more effective that way, and that’s what differentiates AmericasRight from most of the other blogs.

    Randy

  31. Jeff says:

    Oh my God, the line about math and numbers was hilarious but only because it is so true. After all President Obama has saved or created 500 million American jobs in all 57 states.

  32. whats_up says:

    @ Jeff,

    Again a well written article except for two points. The Constitution doesnt allow for judicial review (which in my opinion it should have). Also why is Marbury v Madison “settled” law? Just curious how you come to that conclusion. If that is the case I would submit that Roe v Wade would be “settled” law as well. We will see how the judgement comes out.

    @ Jordan Bell

    Check your history, nullification has never been used successfully and has been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. There is no recorded instance where it worked.

    @Paul Mattfield

    Really? Never produced a birth certificate, perhaps you should talk with the former and current Gov of Hawaii, they both say otherwise.

  33. Jeff Schreiber says:

    What’s Up — very little time to reply (sorry, as you deserve more), but all i can do is encourage you to read Federalist 78 and consider 210 years of jurisprudence.

  34. SHAZAM! Way to hit one over the fence. I enjoyed every word. Thank you, thank you, thank you!

    (Now forward this to the WH ;-0)

  35. Jordan Bell says:

    Whats_up:

    Nullification has been used before. Check out the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798. You can also check out The Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 being nullified by the Wisconsin State Supreme Court in 1854.

    I agree with you that the constitution doesn’t allow for judicial review, and it should not have that capability. The Judiciary is a branch of the Federal government, and giving the Federal government the ability to rubber stamp yes the constitutionality of any law is unwise. The individual States themselves are the ones that gave specific responsibilities to the Federal government, listed in Article I Section 8, and that was it. All others remained with the States. If the Federal government usurped its powers, then it was the States that had to intervene to nullify those laws. You can not rely on a branch of the Federal government to keep itself in check. We see how that has worked out thus far.

    Here is an excellent resource on nullification:

    http://www.tomwoods.com/nullification-answering-the-objections/

  36. Sheldon Cooper says:

    @whats_up re @Paul Mattfield
    If two governors have seen it, why was a blatant forgery put on the White House website? I downloaded the day it was posted, right from whitehouse.gov and having 40 years in IT, can attest it is a forgery, and VERY BAD at that. 9 layers in a pdf, and each p ositioned with human intelligence. I mean come on, seriously? And then we could also bring up his Selective Service registration with a two digit year postal indicia. And God himself only knows how in the he// he was issued a Connecticut SSN. Have your grandchildren play around with that pdf bc, they could explain it to you.

  37. Sheldon Cooper says:

    I have to agree with Jordan Bell on who should keep an eye on the Federal, us…. Tennessee for one.

  38. whats_up says:

    @ Jordan Bell,

    Neither of those resolutions gained any traction and they both failed. No other legislatures came on board. Again nullification didnt work, the Alien and Sedition Acts was the law of the land. Specific state legislatures comdemned both the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions. Do you have an example on nullification that worked?

  39. Sue Campbell says:

    Thank you so much for articulating what most of us can’t but wish we could.
    You have made it so obvious what his intentions are and how serious it will be if he is re-elected – God forbid!

  40. Anonymous says:

    @whats_up

    RE: @Paul Matsfield…

    I’ll see your “Governors,” and I’ll raise you Sheriff Joe.

  41. Sheldon Cooper says:

    @Anonymous BAZINGA! Over 50 years law enforcement experience, 30 as a Fed. Hawaii governors are bottom of the food chain.

  42. R.E. Lee says:

    Screw nullification, secession baby.

  43. Ubin Schooled says:

    I can see those two governors as children.. “my dog ate it, teacher.”

  44. A patriot says:

    Brew yourself a coffee, kick up your feet, and watch a whole lot of probable cause on why this president may not quite understand the Constitution.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6gZFF0mVGk

  45. JP Baker says:

    “For the judiciary, resisting this temptation is particularly important, because it’s the only branch that is unelected and whose officers serve for life. Unfortunately, some judges give in to temptation and make law instead of interpreting. Such judicial lawlessness is a threat to our democracy — and it needs to stop.”

    President George W. Bush 2007

  46. JP Baker says:

    To all you self appointed experts on social security numbers….the 1st three digits of mine are 058….please tell me where was I born ???

  47. Jeff Schreiber says:

    “To all you self appointed experts on social security numbers….the 1st three digits of mine are 058….please tell me where was I born ???”

    Kenya.

    BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAA!

    See why I don’t want this birther stuff here, folks? We shouldn’t be talking about social security numbers — we should be talking about SOCIAL SECURITY REFORM. We’re not substantive ENOUGH as a nation already, friends … why distract?

    The stuff that’s being said here about judicial review and originalism … that’s substantive. Jordan Bell is making some great points, as is Randy, as did I. That’s the kind of debate that we should be having — a debate in which we all are smarter for participating, not a debate where we all need to shower off the WorldNetDaily afterwards.

  48. Its your blog says:

    Sad, a lawyer deeming rule of law, law and order, and playing fair, constitutionally, not substantive. We’ll see who ‘laughs’ last.

    The SSN is the least of that mans problems.

  49. Jeff Schreiber says:

    You have three-plus years of abject failure on each and every issue, and you’re focusing on an issue that–like it or not–is perceived to be a passion of conspiratorial nuts? Even if there was unequivocal proof that y’all were right, even if there was a video of a hospital in Kenya in which Barack Obama’s grandmother was graphically giving birth, and saying “I’m gonna name him Barack!”, most of the country would assume that the tape was tainted anyway, and your movement would be no further along than it is now.

    It’s like UFOs — even if there is clear video of one, at least half the population assumes it is fake anyway.

    On the other hand, if you look at Obama’s record, you have FACTS. Cold, hard, indisputable facts. Facts that indict not only Barack Obama but all progressive hacks as well. Facts that show, unequivocally, that the Left’s grand utopia simply. does. not. work. Let’s stick with those, shall we? Let’s not only remove Barack Obama from office, let’s so discredit folks who believe like he does that they stay out of power for years to come.

    Look at what we’ve been able to do to the global warming hacks. See http://americasright.com/2012/04/06/more-unintended-consequences-of-environ-meddling/ . They have theory, kinda like birthers have theory, while those of us who know better have FACTS. Let’s stick with facts, shall we?

  50. Denise Michele says:

    @JP Baker

    Where one was born was not the determining factor when issued a Social Security Number, unlike today when they are issued at birth. The determining factor in the past was the place of legal residence when a Social Security Number was applied for prior to applying for one’s first job.

    @ Jeff Schreiber

    Great article. But I must disagree with your assessment that other issues, including the so-called ‘birther’ issues, including those of fraud and forgery charges are not substantive as well. It has been determined by a law enforcement agency that probable cause exists with a recommendation for a Congressional inquiry into the FACT that the birth certificate placed on whitehouse.gov is a computer generated forgery. It was not a scan of a paper document as claimed, and that the Selective Service Registration Card also evidences forgery. An inquiry should be conducted to determine, based on these FACTS, the WHY of the fabrications, if indeed genuine documents actually exist. Those who want and expect honest answers to these questions should not be characterized as ‘fringe’.

Trackbacks

  1. [...] America’s Right: An Open Letter to President Barack H. Obama, Constitutional Scholar [...]

  2. [...] my open letter to the president, I largely ignored the president’s duplicitous and disingenuous perspective on judicial [...]

  3. [...] my open letter to the president, I barely touched upon the president’s duplicitous and disingenuous perspective on judicial [...]

  4. [...] of Dragons” for Jimmie Bise, I talked with Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right about his open letter to the president.  In it, Jeff wrote: Wave the white flag, Mr. President.  Or, preferably, you can continue to [...]

  5. [...] years, would I consider myself a “constitutional scholar.”  As I pointed out in my open letter to the president, I can debate family law here in the Palmetto State better than the Constitution.  If you want [...]

  6. [...] of Dragons” for Jimmie Bise, I talked with Jeff Schreiber of America’s Right about his open letter to the president. In it, Jeff wrote: Wave the white flag, Mr. President. Or, preferably, you can continue to make a [...]

  7. [...] you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the [...]

  8. [...] you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the [...]

  9. [...] you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the [...]

  10. [...] you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the [...]

  11. [...] you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the [...]

  12. [...] you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the [...]

  13. [...] you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the [...]

  14. [...] you’d think a President who happens to also be a former “constitutional law professor” would know is highly illegal and sure to eventually, hopefully attract the attention of the [...]

Speak Your Mind

*