General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAre We in a Constitutional Crisis?
Jerry Nadler, the New York Representative who is the chair of the House Judiciary Committee, sure thinks so. He said last week, after the White House refused to release the full version of the Mueller report, Certainly, its a constitutional crisis. He added that the country is in one because the president is disobeying the law, is refusing all information to Congress.
Since he issued that statement, others have lined up behind him. On Thursday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi agreed with him. She said that this administration wants to have a constitutional crisis because they do not respect the oath of office that they take.
And over the weekend, Senator and presidential candidate Kamala Harris jumped aboard, although with a bit of equivocation. She told CNN, I think it is fair to say that we are looking at a crisis, not only of confidence, but potentially a constitutional crisis.
There is no doubt that more and more Democrats are going to chime in on this question in the coming days and weeks. However, there is also little doubt that this is the wrong question. The right question, and really the only question that matters here, is what anyone is going to do about the situation, above and beyond what weve been doing so far (which has accomplished very little in terms of stopping the president). Because whether we are in a constitutional crisis or not is completely irrelevant if all anyone does is talk about it and no one takes any action about it.
We can debate the specifics of what is a constitutional crisis until the proverbial cows come home. Law professors and other legal experts make their money and their reputation waxing intelligent on the issue.
The reality, though, is that there is no magic definition of what is a constitutional crisis and what isnt one. You can read the Constitution all you want and you wont find the term mentioned there. Moreover, the term appears only twice in the history of Supreme Court majority opinions (and only three times referring to American history in non-majority opinions), and both times referred to events in American history that happened decades prior to the Courts use of the term (the 1937 Court-packing threat and the 1832 Nullification Crisis). In other words, the Court used the term with hindsight to describe history, not to evaluate any on-going legal dispute.
-more-
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/constitutional-crisis-nadler-trump-834955/
msongs
(67,453 posts)The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,872 posts)A constitutional crisis might be, for example, if the Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to comply with a subpoena and they refused anyhow. How would the order be enforced? The possibility of a constitutional crisis like that was considered after Nixon was ordered to turn over the tapes, but he complied. Trump might not.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)Further Barr is acting as the president's personal lawyer rather than acting in the best interest of the government and the laws of the United States. It is a blatant and obvious violation of oath of office on both counts. This doesnt even begin to address the fact that the Senate is entirely disinterested in holding the executive branch to account and is complicit in ignoring Trump's treason.
Constitutional
Crisis
The Velveteen Ocelot
(115,872 posts)I am waiting for all hell to break loose when the Supreme Court rules against him in some case (it doesn't really matter which one, for these purposes), as eventually it will. I will bet kroner to krugerrands that Trump will refuse to comply with whatever he's ordered to do or not do, and that he might even try to fire the justices that ruled against him (which obviously he can't do). How do the Supremes make him comply with their order?
Igel
(35,359 posts)The Senate doesn't have to get involved. The House doesn't control the Senate; a Constitutional crisis is when the mechanisms in the Constitution don't provide for governance according to the Constitution. The Senate can zzzzz during the entire crisis with all but electoral impunity.
There have been numerous times when the House has demanded documents and the Executive has said, "Take a walk." This is usually resolved over the course of a few months with maximal demands and the corresponding maximal counter-claims being whittled down to what's actually required for the legislative or oversight purposes. Which is reasonable and foreseen, negotiation between the two branches. Not a crisis, but expected.
That hasn't always happened. In those cases, often it goes to court for adjudication, which is what the Constitution also provides for. Again, not a crisis, but according to Hoyle. Or Robert's.
Sometimes the court rules for the executive. Sometimes for the legislative. Sometimes it splits the difference and says, "Let us see it, we'll act as mediator."
The crisis happens when one side steps out of line and claims too much power and doesn't want to hew to the mechanisms outlined for negotiating conflicting claims and expectations. And, at times, when one side or the other has just said, "Nah."
But you know, even then it didn't lead to dictatorship or a coup. It wasn't always pleasant, but typically things kept keeping on and things settled down. (What's different now isn't that the level of trust and suspicion and ratched-up rhetoric is so different at the highest levels or between rank-and-file and opposition politicians, but that the news cycle makes it like fast-cycling bipolar as opposed to slower bipolar, so it's worse. You barely get to recover from the last insult to the senses when there's another one--maybe real, maybe ginned up--there, pushed in a way to make you outraged 24/7. Oh--and there's the assumption that it's not just ill-will on the part of the opposition politicians, but entire broad-brush painting of anybody who's not us as the ultimate evil enemy.)
sprinkleeninow
(20,267 posts)BigmanPigman
(51,636 posts)"So declaring we are in a constitutional crisis is really a non-answer to a stupid question. The real question is what we are going to do about it. And so far, the answer is not much."
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)And they aren't nice enough to post here.
BigmanPigman
(51,636 posts)in the past on DU is now not being alerted on anymore. I have the feeling that we will be seeing more intense points of view widely shared and accepted as the norm within a year. I have noticed a lot more pro-impeachment posts and replies as well as calling for jail and/or fines just in the past week.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)Overloading on the cholesterol would do it!
BigmanPigman
(51,636 posts)I have the feeling that an extra order of KFC won't be enough to rid us of this cretin. Maybe if Putin's chef slipped some polonium into the moron's KFC (made to order of course) there would be a similar result.
ProudLib72
(17,984 posts)benld74
(9,910 posts)democratisphere
(17,235 posts)We have a rogue wannabe dictator attempting to destroy our Democracy.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)being in one in one form or another since The "Esteemed" Mr. Trump took the oath of office.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)Impeachment would be possible if the Senate represented anything close to the majority of the population. Right now it represents about 30 - 40% of the population. It is only going to get worse. We are getting into a situation where the senate is dictating the court system, and they are preventing the empowerment of the congress to exercise oversight. So we will have a court system that is increasingly constructed of the "30%" and it will only get worse as the demographics become more concentrated in fewer and fewer states. The presidential race, as we have seen, will also be influenced by this, although not to the same degree. But none the less this isn't so much a "constitutional crisis" as it is a crisis created by the constitution.
Kablooie
(18,641 posts)world wide wally
(21,755 posts)JHB
(37,163 posts)February 13, 2016, the day Mitch McConnell and other Senate Republicans said they would not consider any nominee put forth by Obama.
That was a flat-out break with precedent and dereliction of constitutional duty in order to make the SC seat a partisan football during the election.
world wide wally
(21,755 posts)spanone
(135,888 posts)colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)What this Orange Cretin has done is impeachable X 100. He is an embarrassment who will be judged harshly for centuries if we survive his time in the WH.
KentuckyWoman
(6,697 posts)This mess is just the latest scenery along the way.
SoCalDem
(103,856 posts)because HE does not follow or believe in the constitution