You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘5th Circuit Court of Appeals’ tag.
April 4, 2012 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Economy, Family values, Health care reform, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barack Obama, Constitutional law, Due Process, Fourteenth Amendment, Judge Jerry Smith, judicial review, Marbury v Madison, Obama care, Prof. Thom Lambert, Roe v. Wade, University of Chicago Law School, US Supreme Court | 2 comments
The Irony: A Law Professor who was taught by Barack Obama then served as a Law Clerk for Judge Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:
Prof. Thom Lambert of the University of Missouri Law School has responded with alarm to President Barack Obama’s attack on the Supreme Court and the power of judicial review by recalling his own days as Obama’s student at the University of Chicago.
Lambert, who writes for the “Truth on the Market” blog, not only studied under Obama, but also clerked for the federal judge who issued an order yesterday demanding that the Department of Justice clarify whether the government believed courts had the power to overturn constitutional laws.
Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who “famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago”: “[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?”
I actually know the answer to that question. It’s no (well, technically yes…he didn’t). President Obama taught “Con Law III” at Chicago. Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old “structural Constitution” stuff — is covered in “Con Law I” (or at least it was when I was a student). Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment. (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn’t seem too concerned about “an unelected group of people” overturning a “duly constituted and passed law” when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.) Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President’s “unprecedented, extraordinary” remarks.
Lambert added: “Fortunately…[t]his morning, the judge for whom I clerked, Judge Jerry E. Smith of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, called the President’s bluff….I must say, I’m pretty dang proud of Judge Smith right now. And I’m really looking forward to reading that three-page, single-spaced letter.”
April 4, 2012 in Campaign 2008, Campaign 2010, Campaign 2012, Economy, Family values, Health care reform, Politics, socialism, Uncategorized | Tags: 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, Barack Obama, Dana Kaersvang, Marbury v Madison, ObamaCare, US Supreme Court | Leave a comment
The “ticker” at the bottom of the news channel caught my eye so fast as it rolled yesterday. Then the news station broadcast the story.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, in Houston, TX, asked the federal government’s attorney to provide the Court with a “3 page single spaced” answer as to the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice (and thus the White House) as to whether they believe that the courts have the authority of judicial review by the Constitution.
During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama’s comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.
“I’m referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I’m sure you’ve heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress,” Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.
The Obama team has been trying to downplay the poor performance of the Solicitor General during the oral arguments on the ObamaCare legislation before the Supreme Court last week. But the President, in an apparent attempt to rile up the base, commented this week that it would be “unprecedented” for the Court to overturn a law passed by the elected officials by a massive majority (Note- ObamaCare passed the House by only 7 votes). For a ConLaw lawyer and professor to make such a statement fkys in the face of their teachings, and completely ignores the longstanding Court decision of Marbury v. Madison, a case that is among the first studied in any law school’s ConLaw I class.
Since every speech the President makes these days are campaign speeches (disguised as policy speeches), will he permit the DOJ to contradict his statements. If the DOJ fails to respond to the 5th Circuit by noon on Thursday, how will Judge Smith react?
Let’s get the buttered popcorn ready!!