Jonathan Schwarz offers a very cynical contrast in Barack Obama Is Powerless Before the Majesty of the Law, contrasting (1) Obama’s acceptance of the (IMHO correct) advice of (all of?) his lawyers that he should not rely on an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that would have allowed him to raise the debt ceiling unilaterally with (2) Obama’s rejection of the (IMHO correct) advice of (most of) his lawyers that he lacked the authority to bomb Libya unilaterally.
Schwartz’s conclusion: “Of course, as people with a sophisticated understanding of the law know, there’s a huge difference between ignoring the debt ceiling and bombing Libya. For instance: Obama wants to bomb Libya.”
To be fair, the consensus on the 14th Amendment issue is probably wider than on the War Powers issue, but even so.
The Obama administration also seems to be rejecting the (former?) Justice Department view that horizontal price-fixing is a per se violation of Sherman Act § 1. I’m not sure if the administration actually hosted the price-fixing negotiation at the White House. But the news stories all say the Obama administration sure pushed the parties into the price-fixing agreement.
Progressives voted for Obama, in part, because he was touted as a “constitutional scholar.” The mainstream media thoroughly vetted him as such. So I am shocked to observe his supporters now questioning his legal conclusions. Shocked.