Drew Singer and Terry Baynes of Reuters purport to quote a law professor complaining about the activity/inactivity Commerce Clause ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius:
In a slightly more fanciful scenario, [name omitted], a liberal law professor at [Top-14 law school], posited an example of a deadbeat dad who could mount a creative legal argument to dodge child-support payments under interstate enforcement laws. The dad could challenge the federal enforcement laws on grounds that they penalize him for failing to pay for something.
So, if we're to believe Reuters, a Yale JD/Ph.D. tenured law professor (who blogs on perhaps the best liberal law professor blog) doesn't know the difference between the Commerce Clause and the Full Faith and Credit Clause. I'd make a remark about how biased the legal academy has become and how divorced from the Constitutional text "mainstream legal thought" has become that the Con Law professors don't know basic structural clauses relating to the enumerated powers in the Constitution—except that I just refuse to be that cynical, and have to think that this is a misunderstanding or other mistake by the reporter rather than a stunning display of elite ignorance and epistemic closure. Thus, I omit the professor's name in this post, though you can find it in the Reuters story. Or am I being too generous?