Well, when our "con law prof" president makes utterly stupid comments that betray a profound ignorance of our Constitution and our nation's history of judicial review, what do you expect.

First, there was Obama's former law professor.

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president “obviously misspoke” earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health-care law.

Mr. Tribe, who calls the president was one of his best students, said in an interview: “He didn’t say what he meant…and having said that, in order to avoid misleading anyone, he had to clarify it.”

Mr. Tribe said he saw no reason for the president to express his views on the matter, because everyone already knows he wants the case upheld.

Tribe says he doesn't think anything was to be gained by commenting on the case -- but he also doesn't think there was any harm done. I'll disagree -- it made Obama look like a Grade A ignoramus. . . well, maybe Tribe was right after all and there was no harm done to Obama.

And then there is one of Obama's former students, Professor Thom Lambert of the University of Missouri Law School.

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.

Yeah, I can see that. After all, when one's most well known instructor shows himself to be an utter incompetent in the field of his expertise, that does sort of tarnish the prestige of having taken a class with him.

But Lambert does have one thing to mitigate the damage -- he clerked for Judge Jerry Smith, who has directed the Justice Department to confirm whether or not Obama's effort to undermine the authority of the Supreme Court constitutes official administration policy -- which has resulted in Attorney General Holder having to repudiate the stated views of the man who appointed him to office.