Which specific articles of the US Constitution have been cited in criticisms of Biden's policies?
Executive summary
Critics have invoked a range of constitutional provisions when attacking President Biden’s policies, most prominently the impeachment-related clauses and the President’s oath and “take care” duty as cited in House impeachment resolutions (see H.Res.503 and H.Res.671) [1] [2]. Other critiques point to Article II limits on executive power in op-eds about pandemic-era mandates and to debates about the Equal Rights Amendment and Section 702 where opponents and advocates frame constitutional authority differently [3] [4] [5].
1. Impeachment, the presidential oath and the “take care” clause — the formal constitutional cudgel
House resolutions that sought or discussed impeachment of President Biden explicitly ground their complaints in the Constitution’s impeachment provisions and in the President’s oath and duties — saying he violated his constitutional oath “faithfully to execute the office” and the duty “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed” (H.Res.503 and H.Res.671) [1] [2]. Those documents are the clearest instances in the record where critics point to specific constitutional text as the basis for institutional action; the resolutions quote or paraphrase the Constitution’s allocation of impeachment power and the removal-for-“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” standard [1].
2. Article II limits and executive power — legal theory in opinion pages
Conservative legal commentators have singled out Article II’s limits on the presidency when criticizing Biden administration actions, arguing that some pandemic-era and regulatory measures exceeded the president’s constitutional authority. The American Enterprise Institute op‑ed, for example, invoked Article II to say vaccine‑mandate-related authority exceeded presidential power and violated the “letter and spirit” of Article II [3]. That argument is presented as a constitutional principle in commentary, not as a judicial holding in the sources provided [3].
3. Administrative law and statute-specific complaints: Section 702 and surveillance
Civil liberties groups have attacked the Biden administration’s defense of specific statutory authorities by framing them as inconsistent with constitutional protections. The ACLU’s piece criticizes the administration for defending Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, calling the program “constitutionally infirm” and arguing its backdoor searches undermine Fourth Amendment protections in practice [4]. That criticism connects statutory defense by the administration to broader constitutional privacy claims [4].
4. The Equal Rights Amendment — constitutional text vs. ratification process
The ERA controversy shows critics and defenders using constitutional language in different ways. President Biden’s statement declaring the ERA “part of our Constitution” drew pushback from fact‑checkers and reporters who noted unresolved legal questions about ratification deadlines and formal recognition; PolitiFact concluded Biden’s definitive claim was misleading because no federal court or national archivist had formally published the ERA as ratified in their reporting [5]. Roll Call likewise covered how Biden’s declaration prompted constitutional consternation about process and deadlines [6]. Thus critics and supporters both invoke the Constitution but dispute whether the amendment’s procedural pathway has been satisfied [5] [6].
5. Proposals about presidential immunity and Supreme Court reform — constitutional amendment debates
Some critics — and some in Biden’s orbit proposing reforms — have anchored their critiques in constitutional design, arguing about whether the Constitution should be amended to limit lifetime judicial tenure or change presidential immunity. Commentators warn that proposals to abolish presidential immunity (or to impose term limits on justices) would themselves require constitutional amendment and raise separation‑of‑powers concerns; private policy groups have framed such proposals as running “contrary to the separation of powers inherent in our Constitution” [7] [8]. The sources show the debate is about constitutional change, not settled constitutional text [7] [8].
6. What the available sources do not mention
Available sources do not mention a systematic, enumerated list of every specific constitutional article (beyond impeachment, Article II themes, and references to amendments like the ERA) repeatedly cited in criticisms of Biden; the documents provided sample several distinct lines of attack but do not assemble a comprehensive catalog of every article or clause critics have invoked [3] [1] [4] [5].
7. Takeaway — competing uses of the Constitution in political argument
Across these pieces, the Constitution is used both as legal text and as rhetorical authority: House resolutions rely on explicit constitutional text (impeachment and the oath) to justify institutional remedies [1] [2]; legal commentators and advocacy groups deploy Article II, Fourth Amendment principles, and amendment‑process rules to argue over policy and statutory defenses [3] [4] [5]. The sources show persistent disagreement over whether contested actions violate constitutional limits or reflect legitimate exercise of statutory and executive authority — a disagreement grounded in competing readings of constitutional text and of statutory implementation [3] [4] [5].