( CNN ) -- In what must be the most extraordinary statement of his presidency , Barack Obama on Monday blasted the possibility that the United States Supreme Court might overturn the Affordable Care Act . Obama said the court would take an `` unprecedented , extraordinary step '' if it overturns the law , because it was passed by `` a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress . '' Setting aside the point that the ACA did not pass with an overwhelming majority , but by a party-line vote in the Senate and seven votes in the House , and without the support of a single member of the Republican Party , the most astonishing thing about Obama 's diatribe was the fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional tradition it revealed . Since 1788 , in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers , it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits . This is not , as Obama implies , judicial activism , or political activity on the part of the justices . This is simply , as Hamilton explained , fidelity to the Constitution itself , fidelity to the highest expression of `` We the People of the United States , '' the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution . That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison ( 1803 ) , but it had been noted not only by Hamilton , but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century . And over the years , in more than 50 instances , courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures . Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation . It is certainly true that sometimes courts , and even the Supreme Court , have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution , and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down . But if the ACA 's individual mandate is rejected , this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers . Opinion : Supreme Court is playing with fire . This is because , as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court , that mandate , for the very first time in history , is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce . It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is , instead , an attempt to create and compel commerce , which the Constitution does not authorize . The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution , a measure regarded as fundamental by those who argued for the passage of the Bill of Rights in 1791 , provides that the powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people thereof . As the Supreme Court told us in the Lopez ( 1995 ) and Morrison ( 2000 ) cases , this means that there must be some limits on the powers of the federal government , and it also means that the basic law-making power , the police power , must reside in the governments closest to the people themselves , the state and local governments . This is our tradition , and the ACA 's individual mandate is a fundamental break with that tradition . If , as it should , the Supreme Court declares the individual mandate unconstitutional , it will be reaffirming our traditions , and not usurping them . The president , a former constitutional law teacher , should be ashamed of himself . The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Stephen B. Presser .
President Obama top ##pled would break with Congress if it overturns the health care law . Senator Presser says Obama , who taught constitutional law , should know better . He says the Supreme Court has long exercised power to overturn unconstitutional laws . Presser : Judicial review does n't usurp Congress ' power ; it is the rule of law .