To The Daily Sun
In the Feb. 14 issue of The Daily Sun, Mr. Valengavich asked for "... one right winger actually (to) give one instance where our president has violated the Constitution ..." This is in reply to that request.
The second paragraph of Article.1. Section. 5. of the Constitution reads as follows, "Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member." Nowhere in Article.1. does the Constitution authorize the Executive or the Judicial branches to determine what those rules may be.
Article. II. Section. 2. of the Constitution states that the president shall have the power to nominate people to serve in a variety of positions, "... by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate.
That section also states, "The president shall have power 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."
At issue was President Obama's making of a total of four recess appointments while the Senate was in session. The administration was challenged on those appointments and argued that the Senate was not actually in session as not all the Senators were physically there.
To this point, three Circuit Courts (3rd, 4th, and DC Circuit Courts of Appeals) have ruled the president violated the Constitution by making those four appointments while the Senate was in session. The administration has again appealed the decision and it is now going to be heard by the Supreme Court.
In the presidential oath of office, the president swears or affirms that to the best of his ability he will preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
Beyond the above issue, to date, there have been twenty seven changes made to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by the president, without those changes being codified by the House of Representative or the Senate. Even though the Congress has expressed a willingness to modify the law, the Administration has chosen to act unilaterally.
Also before the Supreme Court is the issue on whether the ACA is in conflict with the First Amendment to the Constitution, specifically with respect to the free exercise of religion. This issue is before the Supreme Court as a number of lower court have rendered differing opinions.
In my view, the primary reason for the Senate leadership to have exercised the so called "nuclear option," is so the Democrat-controlled Senate can roll over the opposition and provide the Advice and Consent of Presidential appointments who would not otherwise receive that Consent. For the longer haul, that decision may be one of the most destructive and divisive in the history of the Senate. Time will tell.