Last week’s State of the Union was one to remember, although surely not for the reasons that its drafters intended.

It began as an inspiring little story about The Little Country That Could. In its positive reminder that central to the American spirit is the character of its citizens, President Obama’s address to the Congress last Wednesday had was brilliant in terms both of his style of delivery. Viewers must have felt reunited with values from which this period of economic woe has estranged them.

President Obama eloquently reminded us that our maturation as a nation although tempting to chalk up to destiny, was achieved through a process of overcoming obstacles and learning from our mistakes. We really do rise to challenges and are resilient in responding to setbacks and in being reminded of this power there is hope for the future.

Built on messages of empowerment and hope, the initial five minutes were one of the great fragments in the history of State of the Union speeches. Had Obama transitioned from that superb entrée only into a lukewarm and uninspired main course of targeted tax cuts and a commitment to producing bipartisan measures to release the frustrated engine of American business, he would have had me at “my fellow Americans.”

Instead, President Obama demonstrated why he is still focused primarily on being the leader of the left-wing of the Democrat Party and not the entire nation, in being a hatchet man and not a healer. He attempted to label the Republicans as blind obstructionists despite the fact that their minority status does not avail them of power to obstruct anything. He lashed out at businesses audacious enough to achieve miraculous profitability when others fail, and restated his belief that success should be taxed to help pay the bills of failing enterprises such as government-run General Motors and AIG.

The invitation for Americans to wish away the severity of our national economic condition by embracing a warm hatred for those who might be better off was still only a prelude to the main event; the listing of enemies was not complete. Why stop at corporations and Republicans? Why let the great moment of this crisis go to waste?

Pivoting further to the left, President Obama slid one foot forward across the sacrosanct line that has traditionally separated the executive and judiciary, and leaned into a solid punch to the collective jaw of the Supreme Court seated only yards away.

Railing against the Supreme Court’s ruling that corporations have the same right to free speech as individuals, President Obama chastised the six justices in attendance suggesting that they “reversed a century of law” in a way that would “open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations.”

Amid sporadic applause from the Democrats in the chamber, Justice Samuel Alito let forth a restrained but emotional retort; the emphatic words “not true” appeared to come forth as a rapid and indignant reaction to Kid Chicago’s interbranch sucker punch and the malicious distortion of the Court’s intent. His response was measured and justified. To have held back in the situation would have created the impression that the Court was deferential to the President. In that sense, Alito’s comeback was not sparring but important.

Never mind that the President ignored two centuries of public observance of the principle of separated powers, and that the constitutional principles on which the decision was made are hardly controversial. The same injustice that drove the Founding Fathers to break away from the British Empire – taxation without representation – underlies the rights of corporations to speak on issues that affect them. The government imposes regulations on corporations, taxes them in ways it does not tax individuals, and makes decisions about the way in which individuals and businesses may make agreements. Does it not make sense then that they should be afforded rights to speak on their own behalf? Any abridgement of the rights of political speech would be unconstitutional.

To miss the hypocrisy in the President’s foreign donor rationale for limited free corporate speech point requires selective amnesia. Obama’s 2008 campaign was itself accused of opening the “floodgates” to foreign donors when credit card transaction processing procedures were alleged to have been deliberately configured. Millions in untraceable donations were made in the primary and general election periods and his campaign steadfastly refused to work with credit card companies to investigate if any of those donations would have to be returned in accordance with campaign finance laws.

From the White House and their defenders in the media, we should brace for a litany of citations of previous presidential commentary about decisions of the Supreme Court. [See editor’s note below.] Any such attempt at equivocation relies on Americans ignoring the difference between a president speaking out about the Court’s work and scolding them directly and publicly.

By using the State of the Union address as a barnstorming platform to highlight wedge issues, drive fundraising with key liberal interest groups, he gave yet another reason to believe that his promise to voters to mellow the partisan tone in Washington was just another hollow campaign promise. But by deciding to trample on basic precepts of divided power, President Obama has caused many to question whether he understands the principles that guide the system of government he leads.

Let us hope that the next time the President assumes that ascending to the bully pulpit gave him the right or responsibility to be the bully, he will remember the shock of having his dominance challenged in such a public way. If not, at least let Justice Alito, Rep. Joe Wilson or some other brave soul be sitting there to set him straight again.

[Editor’s Note: As this article was going to publication, The Washington Post online edition posted Monday’s column by E.J. Dionne in which he cites prior incidents of presidents bashing the Supreme Court. Among his examples is President Reagan’s rebuke of the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. The comparison is not an apt one, especially considering it is made by a man of Dionne’s intellect. Reagan’s comments were made in 1983, and even Dionne states that this was 10 years after the infamous decision, not seven days as in the case of Obama’s antagonism. Reagan’s opinion was delivered in writing to the readers of Human Life Review, a more proper forum than a nationally-televised address, and less threatening than a face-to-face come to Papa lecture.]

###

Popularity: 1% [?]