Suddenly, law professors weighing in on presidential powers post-Scalia

By James Longstreet

I had wondered where they were. I wondered why there was so little commentary and "expert" analysis from the ivory towers about the Supreme Court and Executive powers issues over the past seven years.

The university law departments have been exceedingly quiet during the Obama years. Where were the "expert" opinions on the Supreme Court altering key language in a passed bill, the Affordable Care Act, and not requiring a revote? The fines were actually taxes, they decided, but the bill was passed with the word "fine." But tax issues must originate in the House, and a bill full of the word "tax" would have met stronger head winds in Congress. A reconsideration by lawmakers, with the new language, was the prudent and legal resolution to the issue. Yet this didn't happen, and the law departments of our great universities were mute.

And what of executive orders and their misuse by an executive?  Article II, section 3, clause 5 is the basis for executive orders.  It insists that the president must faithfully execute the laws of the nation.  And to assist him, as the theory goes, he has executive order powers that will be used to assist in the implementation passed law.  But what reaction from our law professors cometh when executive powers were used to "undo" passed law or invert the original intent of passed law?  Mute again....... Now we come to the Scalia vacancy and the right of the president to recommend a replacement.......Where were they for the past seven years of constitutional twisting and bending?

To Read More