BREAKING: Biden ‘Under Investigation’ By GAO For Halting Billions Of Dollars To Finish Border Wall, Report Says

Democrat President Joe Biden is reportedly “under investigation” for halting billions of dollars in payments that were set to go out to companies that were tasked with finishing President Donald Trump’s southern border wall.

“Now the Government Accountability Office is launching a review to determine whether the new president broke the law by freezing the money in violation of budget rules designed to keep Congress in control of the cash flow,” Politico reported. “The probe highlights the challenge presidents have historically faced in fulfilling campaign promises that require money to be spent — or suspended — at odds with Congress’ intent.”

The report comes as Biden’s border crisis has overwhelmed the U.S.-Mexico border, promoting backlash against Biden from Republicans, Democrats, and even the president of Mexico.

Forty Senate Republicans said in a letter to the Government Accountability Office that in “the weeks that followed” Biden suspending construction of the border wall that “operational control of our southern border was comprised and a humanitarian and national security crisis has ensued.”

The letter added: The President’s actions directly contributed to this unfortunate, yet entirely avoidable, scenario. They are also a blatant violation of federal law and infringe on Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. We write regarding these actions. We believe they violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA), as interpreted by your office, and we request your legal opinion on the matter. Prompt action to end these violations is required to restore order at the border.

More than 60 Republican House lawmakers joined their Senate colleagues on Tuesday in pushing the GAO to investigate the matter.

“They are also a blatant violation of federal law and infringe on Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. “

This won’t get far. Congress will simply resolve to halt funding of the wall, which the Dems were against in the first place, and redirect the money into some other thing, probably bad. All that will stand in their way is the filibuster, which could be taken out into the woods and shot.

Third, the Speaker being in the line of succession is almost certainly unconstitutional. Article II provides that Congress may designate through legislation which “officer” should act as president if both the presidency and VP are vacant or if they are unable to act as such; the best reading would be to limit the line of succession to “officers” under Article II (i.e., Cabinet secretaries, etc.).

The word “officer” as used in such clause cannot be understood to refer to any old officer of government or branch thereof that Congress chooses, or else Congress could designate the Governor of NY as the next in line, which would violate the entire structure of the Constitution and our system of government to boot. Designating judicial officers (such as the Chief Justice), or congressional officers such as the Speaker (who aren’t even “officers of the United States” under the Constitution) also would violate separation of powers, and having them resign to act as president would mean that they no longer would hold the office that made them eligible to act as president in the first place.

“Father of the Constitition” James Madison himself made that constitutional argument when Federalist congressional majorities placed the (Federalist) President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Speaker of the House in the line of succession (it was a partisan move to prevent Democratic-Republican Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson from being second in line after VP Adams), and Congress finally corrected the error in 1886, only to have that idiot Harry Truman bring it back because he wanted “elected officias” atopt he line of succession; yeah, the fact that Nancy Pelosi and Pat Leahy were elected by a few hundred thousand San Francisco or Vermont moonbats sure gives them legitimacy to preside over all Americans.

If a Speaker tried to claim that he was Acting President, the Secretary of State (next in line after the Speaker and PPT) would go to court and claim to be the next constitutionally eligible officer after the VP, and, unless SCOTUS chickens out by calling it a “political question,” the Secretary of State would win.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.