As the Republican primary season plods along, the opponent the eventual nominee will face is either abandoning all pretext and revealing what "fundamentally transform" really means or spiraling out of control. With the Supreme Court moving toward the likely ruling that his signature legislation is unconstitutional, President Barack Obama has launched a pre-emptive strike against the court and the constitution itself.

Continued...

On Monday the president made his first public comments since the court heard arguments on the constitutionality of Obamacare; most specifically the mandate requiring Americans to purchase health insurance. Despite vigorous questioning by the justices and a poor showing by the administration's defender, Mr. Obama stated he was confident that the law would ultimately be upheld. Nothing unusual there – it's the typical political and legal posturing we've come to expect from virtually all sides on any issue.

But the allegedly brilliant constitutional scholar who currently occupies the Oval Office didn't limit his comments to expressing confidence. He went on to claim that should the court strike down some or all of Obamacare, it "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

Talk about your teachable moment! This most recent blatant lie from our Campaigner-in-Chief was best exposed by the editors of the Wall Street Journal who almost immediately published a reminder of Marbury v. Madison. That 1803 US Supreme Court decision "laid down the doctrine of judicial review" and in the two centuries since, the court has invalidated countless laws on the grounds that they were unconstitutional.

In fact, Mr. Obama's claim that such a ruling would be unprecedented was so egregious it has prompted US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith to order that a Justice Department attorney appearing before him submit a letter to his court stating the position of US Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.

Said Judge Smith, "I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."

But is what the president and his subordinates understand really the issue? Of course they understand the concepts of judicial review and the separation of powers. What is at issue is Mr. Obama's apparent belief that somehow these fundamental principles of the American system of government do not apply to him or his agenda.

Whether that is the logical extension of unfettered ideology or a level of narcissism we can hardly imagine is almost irrelevant. What does matter is that Mr. Obama's lies be thoroughly and publicly exposed and that our constitutional system of checks and balances remains strong.