Stripping the political rhetoric out of Obama's preemptive attack on a Supreme Court that would strike down the ACA...

... Attorney General Eric Holder files the 3-page, single-spaced letter demanded by the 5th Circuit explaining the Administrations actual position on the judicial review of federal statutes.

The letter — predictably — presents the most ordinary and elementary propositions of constitutional law going back to Marbury v. Madison.

ADDED: Instapundit says " It’s all pretty unexceptional except for the final sentence." Ha ha. The last sentence is the claim that "The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein."

See, I think this is a wonderful opportunity to compare political speech about the courts to the speech by politicians to the courts. If you get used to these different styles — as I am, having read this stuff for decades — you can translate back and forth. Speak political rhetoric and I can turn it into a version that is fit for judicial consumption. Show me the way you're talking to the judges and I can whip it into demagoguing-the-public form. And then there's the meta level, where Instapundit is, where you juxtapose them and leverage new critique.

Say I, from meta meta land.

Gingrich gives his opponents a quote to gasp about: "There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution."

Just a few days ago, I was talking about a certain type of clever remark:

A witty, engaging speaker will say something surprising and counterintuitive, but then flesh it out or add one more point, and then it clicks. Of course, if you have opponents, you've got to anticipate what they'll do with the little slice of what you said that seems head-slappingly idiotic. So it may not be so smart to be smart like that. 

The context was David Plouffe saying "people won’t vote based on the unemployment rate." And now, here comes Newt Gingrich with an even juicier example of the seemingly stupid line that wakes up the audience and draws them in to hear the whole context but that also gives opponents an easy way to use the remark to make you look like an idiot.

Here's the quote, in it's full context (transcribed in a post by Ian Millhiser at Think Progress):

In the American system, if you read the Constitution correctly — this is why I wrote “A Nation Like No Other” — if you read the Federalist Papers correctly, the fact is the Congress can pass a law and can limit the Court’s jurisdiction. It’s written directly in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton promises, I think it’s Number 78, that the judiciary branch is the weakest of the three branches. There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution. There’s the court which is the Supreme of the judicial branch, but it’s not supreme over the legislative and executive branch. We now have this entire national elite that wants us to believe that any five lawyers are a Constitutional convention. That is profoundly un-American and profoundly wrong.

It's obvious to me — as a law professor who has studied and taught Article III of the Constitution for 25 years — that Gingrich is not denying that the Constitution provides for a Supreme Court. He's denying the supremacy of that Court over the other branches. He's stressing the checks on the judicial branch, which include Congress's power to make "Exceptions and... Regulations" to the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and the idea that the Supreme Court is not the sole voice in the interpretation of constitutional law. This is routine stuff in a Conlaw I class. It's what we conventionally talk about along with Marbury v. Madison. It's not the slightest bit edgy, believe me.

Watch the video at the Think Progress link. You can hear the stress on "Supreme" in "There is no Supreme Court in the American Constitution." He knows there's a Supreme Court. It's just not, in fact, supreme over everything. The Supreme Court can strike down statutes and order members of the Executive branch around to a certain extent, but it is also subject to jurisdiction cutbacks, new appointments, impeachment, and constitutional amendments. And the question of what the Constitution really means survives independently of the case law. We are free to argue that the Court got it wrong, to try to get cases overruled, and so forth. And there are many places where the Court hasn't spoken yet or may never speak, in which case there are important responsibilities elsewhere in government for other individuals to say what the Constitution means.

"I must have read the novel a hundred times, and could recite lengthy passages from memory, without exactly understanding everything."

Says Kenneth Anderson about "Brave New World."

I don't think I've read anything 100 times — except maybe the Sermon on the Mount and Marbury v. Madison. Have you? Do whole passages reside in your memory simply because you've read them so many times? ("It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department...") Or have you made a point of memorizing pages of text? ("Think not that I am come to destroy the law...")

Anderson, responding to my quoting of Aldous Huxley, gives us his favorite Aldous Huxley quote:

I have been told by an eminent academic critic that I am a sad symptom of the failure of an intellectual class in time of crisis. The implication being, I suppose, that the professor and his colleagues are hilarious symptoms of success. The benefactors of humanity deserve due honor and commemoration. Let us build a Pantheon for professors. It should be located among the ruins of one of the gutted cities of Europe or Japan, and over the entrance to the ossuary I would inscribe, in letters six or seven feet high, the simple words: Sacred to the memory of the world's educators. SI MONUMENTUM REQUIRIS, CIRCUMSPICE.

I put the link there for the Latin, which is the punchline. Punchlines in Latin, knocking educators. That in itself is funny.