Obama's Press Conference: Avoiding the Question

At his recent press conference, President Barack Obama said this in response to a question about whether the War Powers Act of 1973 is constitutional:

"I'm not a Supreme Court justice so I'm not going to -- putting my constitutional law professor hat on here. ... But do I think that our actions in any way violate the War Powers resolution? The answer is no. So I don't even have to get to the constitutional question. There may be a time in which there was a serious question as to whether or not the War Powers resolution -- act was constitutional. I don't have to get to the question."

It's one thing for Obama to argue that he hasn't violated the War Powers Act (or resolution, whatever you prefer to call it), so constitutionality isn't an issue with respect to Libya. But it's still an issue in general, and it's a baseless evasion to avoid answering the question of constitutionality because he's "not a Supreme Court justice".

Presidents, after all, appoint justices to the Supreme Court (pending confirmation by the Senate, of course), which involves picking people you think are going to make good rulings. And presidents routinely come down on whether legislation is constitutional. For instance, Obama and his administration have repeatedly argued that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (AKA ObamaCare) is constitutional. And, later on in the same press conference, Obama clearly "puts his constitutional law professor hat on" and says this:

"Let me start by saying that this administration, under my direction, has consistently said we cannot discriminate as a country against people on the basis of sexual orientation. ... Now, what we've also done is we've said that DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, is unconstitutional."

Even though he's "not a Supreme Court justice", Obama confidently states his belief that DOMA is unconstitutional. So, on the matter of whether the War Powers Act violates the Constitution, Obama is ducking the question.

On another topic -- the decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to prevent airplane manufacturer Boeing from moving some production from Washington to South Carolina -- Obama said this:

"Essentially, the NLRB made a finding that Boeing had not followed the law in making a decision to move a plant. And it's an independent agency. It's going before a judge. So I don't want to get into the details of the case. I don't know all the facts. That's going to be up to a judge to decide."

This is yet another evasion. Perhaps the NLRB is "an independent agency" in some sense, but -- just like the Supreme Court -- its members are appointed by the president. He chose some of the members who made this ruling based on his belief that they'd make good rulings, right?

The fact that the case is "going before a judge" is also irrelevant. There's lots of cases that are going before judges who get to make the final ruling -- again, ObamaCare is an example -- but that hasn't prevented Obama from airing his opinion.

It's one thing for Obama to suspend judgment because he doesn't know the facts (though Boeing/NLRB is an important case involving a major manufacturer; is it OK for the president to be uninformed about it?). But the other reasons he offers -- "an independent agency" and "going before a judge" -- are beside the point.

On both of these issues -- the constitutionality of the War Powers Act and the propriety of the NLRB's decision on Boeing -- Obama is evading the question rather than answering it.