Still dodging it.
No, it’s not.
You’ll have to do better than that.
Pro tip IntelliQ: you can’t claim the Democratic party is in ideological Marxist lockstep (#75) and simultaneously point out that their compromise resulted from dissension in the ranks (#103).
The word is “rebut” not “rebuke”, but your posts really didn’t do either. Not that I care anymore. 
That’s funny. Both the way you included “community organizer” in your answer and the way you completely reframed the question you asked in order to not have it sound as if including “community organizer” in your answer wasn’t the height of ridiculousness.
There seems to be an implication that being a “community organizer” (and I still don’t get what’s wrong with being one, or how being one is useless for politics or running for the Presidency) is all Obama can/could point to in the way of experience, or is somehow solely defining of his experience as a candidate and a President. Would you like to argue that this implication is correct, or am I misinterpreting somehow?
Feel free to offer other credentials that would likely increase his understanding of what BrainGlutton described. Theoretically, being a community organizer might be the best training in the universe for being President. But it certainly doesn’t increase the likelihood that one will be able to grasp the items on his list.
If you’d like to argue that being a law professor helps, go right ahead. But I’d point out that it looks like that were’ about to find out on Thursday that Obama doesn’t understand the very Constitution he was teaching. Or maybe being a State Senator is somehow helpful. Possibly. Especially if said Senator was reading up on those subjects during all that time he was simply voting “present”.
No matter how you feel about the ACA, it’s undeniable (as far as I can tell) that there are many legal professionals who know what they’re talking about who think that it is constitutional (or, at the least, that the point of view that it is is reasonable). I don’t think it’d be fair to single out the President on this point, unless you think that all of his advisers (or, for that matter, the courts that ruled in favor of the ACA) also lack the same basic understanding, or are somehow so afraid of him that they’d let him humiliate himself such.
I also don’t agree with the implication that voting “present” is a necessary indicator that the voter in question is ducking the issue, not actually there, or is otherwise somehow shirking his/her duties. At the least, it goes against my understanding. If you have information to the contrary, feel free to share.
I’m not running for office, so I couldn’t care less what political strategy is fashionable. I don’t know why you brought it up. I can only assume that passing off criticism of the GOP as mere gamesmanship means you don’t have anything substantial to rebut it with.
Have you already forgotten what the president and the Dems did last year to accommodate a deal for the debt ceiling?
It doesn’t look like that at all. The presumption is that the statute is constitutional. Even if it was struck down, inferring that he doesn’t understand the constitution from that is frankly moronic. Antonin Scalia is in the minority slightly more than half the time. Does that mean he doesn’t understand the constitution?
It means he’s an “originalist,” which amounts to the same thing.