Skip to comments.Eric Holder's Letter to the Court Misses Point
Posted on 04/06/2012 11:30:41 AM PDT by Libloather
Eric Holder's Letter to the Court Misses Point
By Tara Dodrill | Yahoo! Contributor Network 18 hrs ago
The fact that President Barack Obama was once a constitutional law professor and yet has virtually no understanding or respect for the nation's founding document is mind-boggling.
His comments earlier this week warning the court not to engage in judicial activism was nothing more than hubris. The angry judges demanded a response from Attorney General Eric Holder to determine if the Obama administration believes the court has the power to overturn laws. The controversial attorney general finally drafted the mandated three-page response, but the damage to the administration's reputation was already done, says Fox News.
Although Holder's letter stated that the court's power is "beyond dispute," he also wrote that laws passed by Congress are "presumptively constitutional," Fox News reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
That's a myth. Hussein's transcripts would prove otherwise.
once a constitutional law professor
That’s a myth. Hussein’s transcripts would prove otherwise.
yes ,please prove it ,hearsay not going to cut it
Yet more proof that this drooling idiot shouldn't be allowed to practice law, let alone occupy the office of the AG of the United States.
Quick.....where's that video clip of the moronic black "congressman" chortling about how they don't consider the Constitution whatsoever when they pass laws......
Color me shocked!
What do you want proven, that he was not a professor or that his transcripts would prove otherwise?
My recollection is that during the 2008 campaign some group was trying to find someone, anyone who had ever been in an Obama law school class, even to the point of offering a reward of some kind. No one ever stepped forward.
Not the one I was talking about.........but found these two easily enough:
Even Ann C said last night she wants to see BO’s college transcripts.
People with law background are shaking their heads throughout the country.
Can anybody find out for certain exactly what classes Mr. Obama taught at Chicago? Can we locate the law school’s lists of classes and the instructors for each class for the years Mr. Obama claims to have been an instructor?
Reading the letter from DOJ is enlightening. Basically it says SCOTUS can overturn laws, but they shouldn’t. And, btw, what Obama said was fine. Arrogant, offensive... Look for your own descriptor.
Prof. Thom Lambert of the University of Missouri Law School studied under Obama at the University of Chicago. He wrote a rather scathing article on how embarrassing Obama’s ignorance of the Constitution is.
A few others hold that opinion:
From Ann Barnhardt’s site (http://barnhardt.biz/):
Obama Didn't Write His Own Course Syllabus.
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - March 27, AD 2012 8:20 PM MST
Breitbart.com published Obama’s University of Chicago “Constitutional Law” course syllabus a couple of weeks ago.
HERE IT IS (http://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/2008OBAMA_LAW/Obama_CoursePk.pdf)
Guys, Obama didn't even write his own syllabus. The prose is sophisticated, the grammar is flawless, and the punctuation is good - heck, there are several semicolons used, and used correctly. In other words, the syllabus is everything that every other sample of genuine Obama-written prose is not. It isn't the same voice. It isn't the same author. Period.
Every sample of genuine Obama-written prose in existence is HORRIFIC in terms of prose, grammar and punctuation. Agonizingly horrific. Please see Jack Cashill’s body of work, including several new pieces at AmericanThinker.com .
Look at the course structure itself. Obama only had to bluff his way through four actual class periods, with most of those class periods consisting of student discussion. Students were explicitly graded on their participation in these four class sessions. The other six sessions were “small group project” presentations by the students. Obama wouldn't have to say or do anything in those class periods except play the part of the “wise professor.” Total scammage.
I think Obama was (and is) so stupid, and such a fraud that he had to have someone else prepare his course for him, including what little bit of lecture he delivered in those four class sessions.
Who might have prepared a course syllabus and light lecture notes on constitutional race issues with an emphasis toward education and race?
Bernardine Dohrn. As in Bill Ayers’ wife.
==== end extract ====
Given what has come from the oval orafice the last three years, I lean toward Ann's and Brietbart.com’s opinion.
He was trained at Harvard, therefore fully indoctrinated in the various critical schools of legal analysis. Postmodern, secular, and totally lacking a stable concept of truth, it is a perfect political tool for a gifted liar. Under such a worldview, there are no lies, only things you have to say and do to create the reality you want. Under such a worldview, there is no place for a static document like the Constitution, or the Bible, or any other supposed textual authority. They are all “just words,” mere expendable bullets in the war to create utopia. For those who actually understand how law is taught at Harvard and the other big name schools, there is no surprise in what we are seeing here. It is the designed path. It is not ignorance. It is premeditated rebellion.
At least one of his students has come forward to clarify that Obama taught a class on the 14th Amendment. Apparently, it wasn’t a memorable class.
Catholic law schools are a step back, but definitely positivistic in their approach.
Here’s a recent piece about both the Obamas with respect to their law licenses.
“As the hollow Obama myth continues to unravel -and any asking relevant questions are still dismissed as ‘fringe’ kooks by the White House/MSM- just forget for a minute the birth certificate, gangster pals, and unexplained disappearances of those who happen to get-in-the-way...
Here’s a refresher on yet another Obama background cover-up episode, the sort that makes it impossible to take his word on anything: are you aware that the former editor of the Harvard Law Revue in reality lost his license to practice law because he lied on the application...?
If that’s not bad enough, ‘lawyer’ Michelle Obama’s last place of employment -a fake, mafia/union-style ‘no work’ position as ‘legal counsel’ for the University of Chicago hospitals at an inflated salary (allegedly a payback for Barack’s obtaining them a government grant)- would also require a legal license... or so you’d think: seems Moo-chelle was taking- in $300K+/year while not qualified to practice law either. Interestingly, the job no longer even exists.
Why don’t the Obamas -touted as brilliant minds/teachers- have their law licenses? Seems they where forced to cough them up, in Barack’s case to avoid charges for false statements i.e. he had ‘no prior aliases’, among other things.
For those not familiar with the intricacies of the Bar Association, a “Voluntary Surrender” of one’s license is not something where you just forget to renew it. No, a “Voluntary Surrender” is something you do when you’ve been accused of something, and you ‘voluntarily surrender’ your license five seconds before the state suspends you.
Michelle Obama also ‘voluntarily surrendered’ her law license in 1993. The search engine linked above has blocked all info on ‘disciplinary action’, so we may never know the truth as to why.
And Barack Obama was nothing like the legal scholar he’s purported to have been: former students have recently come out as ‘shocked’ at their former teacher’s ignorance of the US Constitution, but that just goes to show you that a ‘senior lecturer’ is one thing, a fully ranked law professor is entirely another: and Barack Obama was NOT a Constitutional Law Professor at the University of Chicago- period.
Yes, the University of Chicago released a statement in March 2008 saying Sen. Obama (D-Ill.) “served as a professor” in the law school. In reality, that is a title Obama -who only taught courses there part-time- never held, a spokesman for the school confirmed in 2008. “He did not hold the title of Professor of Law,” said Marsha Ferziger Nagorsky, an Assistant Dean for Communications and Lecturer in Law at the University of Chicago School of Law.
According to the the highest tenured faculty member at Chicago Law, Obama applied for a position as an adjunct and wasn’t even considered. But soon afterward, the law school got a phone call from the Board of Trustees telling them to find him an office, put him on the payroll, and give him a class to teach. They said he didn’t have to be a member of the faculty, but they needed to give him a temporary position. He was never a professor... and barely an adjunct.
The other (real) professors ‘hated him because he was lazy, unqualified, never attended any of the faculty meetings, and it was clear that the position was nothing more than a political stepping stool.’
Another Chicago Law professor said that Obama ‘had the lowest intellectual capacity in the building’. The same prof expressed serious doubt as to whether BHO was ever legitimately an editor on the Harvard Law Review, because if he was, he would be the first and only editor of an Ivy League law review to never be published while in school (publication is a standard prerequisite for the position).
Perhaps this all helps to explain then the way that the former ‘Constitutional Senior Lecturer’ cited the U.S. Constitution during his most recent State of the Union Address. Unfortunately, the quote he cited was from the Declaration of Independence ....
not the Constitution .
Obama said: “We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal.”
Uh, btw Mr. President... those promises are not a ‘notion’... the Founding Fathers said they are ‘unalienable rights- BIG difference. And the document you quoted form was actually
The Declaration of Independence:
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.’
And this is the same guy who lectured the Supreme Court just moments later?
Did this fraud ever even graduate from Harvard...?”
If that was true, why would we need a Supreme Court to review the laws? They think we're all stupid and they are 30% correct.
Two points. Yes, you can just voluntary suspend your use of your law license, and that by itself implies no wrongdoing. You might wish to avoid the responsibilities of an active license, such as financial or ethical ambiguities that could arise during your run for political office. Or maybe you just want to go bird watching for a year. Who knows. Point is, its easy to opt out for unspectacular reasons, and without better documentation on exactly why it happened, you can infer almost nothing from the fact that it did happen. I’m still asking where’s the beef on that one.
As for not getting published on LR, yes, that’s odd. I wasn’t even editor in chief, and I got published. The editor is supposed to be the real hotshot, the person who not only is super smart, but knows how to translate that intellect into well written, expert legal analysis. Furthermore, that’s why you want to be editor in chief, to get the recognition you deserve for being the very best. If he didn’t publish, he couldn’t write, barring some unusual circumstance. Definitely raises a red flag. Pun intended.