In a June 24 editorial, the Washington Examiner used a federal judge's grant of an injunction halting President Obama's deep-water drilling moratorium to predictably, hyperbolically and falsely attack the president.

The editorial board stated that they found it “disturbing” that “Obama is forging ahead with the very policy” that Judge Martin Feldman “just ruled unconstitutional,” using that claim to support their conclusion that for Obama and his “cronies,” “the will of the people and the letter of the laws is at most an obstacle on the road to 'change we can believe in'.” They even went so far as to suggest that Obama's presidency is somehow against the intent of founding father Alexander Hamilton. From the editorial:

Even more disturbing is Obama's response to [federal Judge Martin] Feldman, which was to promise both an appeal in court and issuance of a new drilling moratorium from Interior. In other words, Obama is forging ahead with the very policy the judge just ruled unconstitutional. And the chief executive is challenging the thousands of Gulf Coast oil industry employees to try and stop him in the appeals court.

[...]

Years ago, Alexander Hamilton told the New York convention considering adoption of the Constitution that “here, sir, the people govern.” We wonder what he would say today after witnessing Obama in action.

Harsh criticism to be sure. The only problem is, it's not true. Obama can't possibly be “forging ahead with the very policy that the judge just ruled unconstitutional,” because Judge Feldman didn't find the moratorium unconstitutional.

In fact, Judge Feldman found that the Secretary of the Interior is indeed entitled to created provisions “for the suspension or temporary prohibition of any [drilling] operation or activity, including production, pursuant to any lease or permit” under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (000-.html">Title 43, U.S. Code § 1334 (a) (1)), however he deemed the implementation of this moratorium was enacted “arbitrarily and capriciously” and so was in violation of Administrative Procedure Act. Judge Feldman even left open the possibility that a moratorium would be lawful if supported by different evidence in his decision:

While a suspension of activities directed after a rational interpretation of the evidence could outweigh the impact on the plaintiffs and the public, here, the Court has found the plaintiffs would likely succeed in showing that the agency's decision was arbitrary and capricious.

That wasn't the only piece of blatant misinformation in the Examiner's screed. The same editorial claimed, “When the Senate refused to vote on Obama's cap-and-trade energy bill, his Environmental Protection Agency administrator issued a threat: Either pass the bill or the agency will unilaterally impose draconian carbon emission limits on America.”

But the EPA wasn't issuing a threat, just pointing out that the Supreme Court in 2006 ruled that the EPA acted illegally by refusing to determine whether greenhouse gases are air pollutants that must be regulated under the Clean Air Act.

Indeed, as EPA administrator Lisa Jackson stated in the speech the Examiner highlighted:

In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down perhaps the most significant decision ever reached in environmental law. The Court ruled that the Clean Air Act, the landmark 1970 law aimed at protecting our air, is written to include greenhouse gas pollution. That verdict echoed what many scientists, policymakers, and concerned citizens have said for years: there are no more excuses for delay.

Regrettably, there was continued delay. But this administration will not ignore science or the law any longer, nor will we avoid the responsibility we owe to our children and grandchildren. Today, I'm proud to announce that EPA has finalized its endangerment finding on greenhouse gas pollution, and is now authorized and obligated to take reasonable efforts to reduce greenhouse pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Perhaps the Examiner should worry less about how Hamilton would feel about Obama's lawful decision to appeal a federal court decision, and more about how he would feel about the paper's expressed wish for the EPA to violate a law created by Congress as interpreted by the Supreme Court.