The whole of the article in question reads:
He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper; he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States.
One could read that and think the president is merely obligated to welcome the ambassador since the constitution states "he shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers;". Why is the author's view any more valid than my interpretation? I am using standard dictionary / legal definitions here, so I just don't see why this twit has his panties in a wad WRT this article of the constitution (other than the fact that he is intentionally twisting the words of the constitution to fit his agenda).
Heck, the constitution also states immediately after the section cited by this dunderhead (very ironically in this case) "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States."
Reuters, as a liberal publication, believes the words mean what Reuters says they mean because Reuters says it. That is a liberal approach to language. Words mean whatever a liberal thinks they should mean at a particular moment.
OK, it says he “shall receive Ambassadors and other public ministers”. But Zero refuses to receive Bibi, so which side is ignoring the Consitution?