Judge Roger Vinson's order last week declaring ObamaCare unconstitutional has prompted a pair of op-eds by professors at elite law schools: Akhil Reed Amar of Yale, in the Los Angeles Times, and Laurence Tribe of Harvard, in the New York Times. Both profs claim ObamaCare is constitutional.There's no way our liberties can survive under the onslaught of an activist judicial system, a socialist President and a Congress full of raving liberals. The system of checks and balances falls apart and tyranny is the ultimate result.
We were going to write "argue" rather than "claim," but we think that may be too generous. Neither article is a serious piece of legal analysis, because both professors simply refuse to take seriously the legal arguments on the other side, even after those arguments have been accepted by two federal trial judges. Rather than grapple with a novel legal issue in a serious scholarly way, it's as if they stick their fingers in their ears and sing "Law law law law law."
Amar's piece is just insulting. He opens by declaring: "My students understand the Constitution better than the judge," and closes by likening Vinson's order to (we're not kidding) the infamous Dred Scott case: "In 1857, another judge named Roger distorted the Constitution, disregarded precedent, disrespected Congress and proclaimed that the basic platform of one of America's two major political parties was unconstitutional."
[...] Tribe claims that the judges who overturned ObamaCare "made the confused assertion that what is at stake here is a matter of personal liberty--the right not to purchase what one wishes not to purchase--rather than the reach of national legislative power." That is false. Both judges concluded that Congress had exceeded its constitutional power, not that it had violated an individual constitutional right.And these clowns are law professors!
As the old adage goes, "Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."