Well, except for this:
53 months later, Congress should make all necessary actions lawful by authorizing the president to take those actions, with suitable supervision. It should do so with language that does not stigmatize what he has been doing, but that implicitly refutes the doctrine that the authorization is superfluous.I don't understand why we should not stigmatize the President's efforts to ignore the Constitution. I'm not asking for an impeachment hearing (from a Republican Congress? get real), but a stern rebuke is needed, I feel, to set an undeniable precedent. And why implicitly refute the doctrine that authorization is superfluous? Why not explicitly?