The first impeachment salvo?
Excerpt: Constitution: President Obama’s nonrecess “recess appointments” can’t be excused as over-the-top electioneering. This president has crossed over from socialistic extremism into lawlessness and, perhaps, impeachability.
The U.S. Constitution established a strong presidency — so strong that even one of the most esteemed founding fathers, Patrick Henry, worried it would be kinglike. But this week saw a president exceed even those broad constitutional powers because doing so fits his election-year narrative of a “do-nothing Congress” so well.
Now we have the makings of a banana republic, where the rule of clearly written constitutional law is compromised by a ruler’s subjective whim.
The Constitution is crystal clear on the recess appointment authority of the president.
“The president shall have power,” Article II, section 2 states, “to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.”
The Senate has not been in recess. And Congress’ authority over when it is and isn’t in recess is no small matter of parliamentary procedure. Rather, it is a power the Framers explicitly bestowed in Article I, Section 5:
“Neither House, during the session of Congress, shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days.”
Yet Obama on Wednesday, with no recess in effect and against the publicly stated position of his own Justice Department, made four “recess appointments.”
Obama claims he has “an obligation as president to do what I can without them,” referring to Congress.
But the Constitution, which Obama took an oath to preserve, protect and defend, says he can’t.
The “I” word — I for impeachment — might not yet be on Washingtonian lips, but it might be soon.
Read full Investors Business Daily article here.