By now, it should be patently obvious that President Barack Obama’s word is almost as ironclad as Wendy Davis’ resume. Heck, in taking his oath of office, the man swore on the Holy Bible — twice — to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” That might placate the dwindling mob of self-titled “progressives” who still grovel slavishly at the altar of Obama, but I’m less confident about how well that’s going to be received by the man upstairs.
At some point, justifying Obama’s Presidency — not to mention the series of crimes and misdemeanors that have defined it — became an exercise in futility. His acolytes simply do not care, beyond blaming each successive scandal on either former President George W. Bush, racism or some combination of the two. Yet last week, a brief glimmer of the “hope” Obama promised (without any intention of delivering) appeared in a particularly unlikely corner of the Nation. According to the U.S. Supreme Court, Obama is going to have to start paying closer attention to the little things — like the Constitution he generally treats with the respect most people reserve for toilet paper, Davis’ “campaign” and The New York Times.
In a landmark ruling, the Court determined that Obama’s appointment of three new members to the National Labor Relations Board violates the Constitution. And when I say “the Court determined,” I don’t mean “the qualified Justices eked out a 5-4 win over the Democratic appointees.” I mean “the Court ruled in a 9-0 decision that Obama violated pretty much every part of the Constitution that deals with the separation of powers.” The court, including Obama’s own appointees, ruled that the President lacks the authority to declare the Senate “in recess.” It’s pretty basic separation of powers stuff. Writing for the unified and unanimous Court, President Bill Clinton appointee Justice Stephen Breyer noted: “The Senate is in session when it says it is.” (Emphasis added.)
Given that the complaints from the regressives center on logic like “But, Bush,” it’s clear that the Democratic Party’s objection is merely another example of their conflation of partisanship and principle. (See also: Obama’s illegal alterations to Obamacare post-passage, deployment of Internal Revenue Service against political opponents, etc.)
But the part that really ought to worry us is the fact that a purported Ivy League graduate, Harvard Law Review editor and former University of Chicago Law professor who claimed in 2007, “I was a Constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current President I actually respect the Constitution,” needed the Supreme Court to remind him of something a first-year law student would have to know in order to become a second-year law student, much less the President of the United States.