On yesterday’s Your World, host Neil Cavuto used the “i” word as he suggested that President Obama might be impeached as a result of Republican legal efforts against his recess appointments. Cavuto’s own FoxNews.com noted that it’s quite likely the Republicans have no legal case. But somehow Cavuto didn’t bring that up in his discussion with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), one of the litigants.

Paul said, “I think the President is unaware that the Constitution has checks and balances. He gets to appoint people, but they’re supposed to be approved by the Senate. Now he’s now defining that we were in recess, but that’s news to us because the Senators that are here don’t think we ever were in recess. So we don’t think the President should have that power. We think it’s Unconstitutional and illegal and we’re going to fight him in court.”

Cavuto asked, “What’s the protocol on this? …It doesn’t matter that most of you were away? What’s the deal?”

”There’s been a tradition for at least 80-100 years that as long as you’re gaveling in about every 3 days that that’s considered to be in recess,” Paul said. “…Some of this is that the power is supposed to be split. For high-ranking appointees, they’re supposed to be approved by the Senate. So I think it shows a certain lawlessness that this President says he’s going to grab up the law and tell everybody else what the law is… What he’s doing sets a bad precedent. If we continue on this precedent, tonight at 9:00, he could appoint a Supreme Court Justice. That is a terrible precedent and I think that kind of lawlessness, we don’t want to live under that.”

Rather than report that breaking tradition is not breaking the law and that there’s at least an argument to be made that President Obama’s decision was lawful, Cavuto kicked it up a couple of anti-Obama notches and talked impeachment. “Technically then, if he’s violating the Constitution or what are the separation of powers here, that’s an impeachable offense at its extreme. Do you agree?”

Paul seemed to acknowledge that he didn't have that kind of case. He said, “We have to have the courts determine whether or not he did violate the Constitution. We can actually make that accusation and we are. And we think it’s illegitimate what he’s done. And we will fight that in court… There is already a court case that’s beginning. I will have a Friend of the Court brief that goes along with that, challenging any decisions by the National Labor Relations Board as being illegitimate because he disobeyed the Constitution in appointing these people.”

Perhaps Paul backed off a bit because he knew – as FoxNews.com reported – that President Obama got a legal opinion from the Justice Department that cleared his appointment.  FoxNews.com also reported: Republicans angry at Obama’s move—and their allies willing to file suit—may not have a legal case. Nowhere in the Constitution is a recess expressly defined even though the document gives the chief executive the “power to fill up vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate.”