We are told, once again, that President Obama is an expert in the Constitution and that he is a “constitutional lawyer.” I await his written works on the topic.

The White House says "the constitutional lawyer in the Oval Office disagrees" with the Supreme Court's decision today on the contraceptive mandate in Obamacare:

"Well, as the constitutional lawyer who sits in the Oval Office would tell you is, he would read the entire decision before he passed judgment in terms of his own legal analysis. What we have been able to assess so far ... is that there is a problem that has been exposed, which is that there are now a group of women of an indeterminate size who no longer have access to free contraceptive coverage simply because of some religious views held, not by them necessarily, but by their bosses," said White House press secretary Josh Earnest.

Did I miss the evidence establishing his status as a constitutional lawyer?

A person who was in the military,and flew small planes for a pastime, isn’t necessarily a military pilot. 

Obama was a senior lecturer at the University of Chicago, we are told.  I say this because he probably did speak to an audience of students at the school and in relation to the Constitution, as he understood it.  We can’t seem to find much testimony from students about his lectures nor are there any audiotapes so far.  A senior lecturer, probably, we are told.

Now Mr. Obama was a lawyer as well.  What type of lawyer is unclear.  If he was a "Constitutional Lawyer" we would be delighted to read some of his writings, read of the cases he deliberated and was involved in.  Yet the dearth of the written word by Mr. Obama regarding the Constitution seems more of a lack of supply than any intentional withholding.  Despite being the president of the Harvard Law Review, his contributions are to be found where, exactly?  Is he another “composite person” in his own autobiography?

No, just because you have a law license and you were a senior lecturer doesn’t necessarily allow the two to be combined to form the title.

Back in 2001, Mr. Obama gave a National Public Radio interview.  In the interview he said,  “the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf….”

To reveal Mr. Obama’s "Constitutional Lawyer" expertise, let us turn to the definition of "negative liberties" as provided by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

"Negative liberty is the absence of obstacles, barriers or constraints. One has negative liberty to the extent that actions are available to one in this negative sense."

Mr. Obama clearly misuses the "negative liberty" term.  Constitutional experts know negative and positive liberties. This "expert" didn't. 

So no more of this Constitutional Expert / Constitutional Lawyer without record or current evidence of really being either.  It seems quite the contrary.