What exactly is a Constitutional Crisis and is it something addressed in the Constitution

[Rockrivr1]

Everything I hear nowadays is about how we are heading to a Constitutional Crisis. Ok, but what does that really mean and what does it entail.

The real question though is whether it’s a bad thing for Conservatives or not. Generally a crisis has an end and does that mean a possible good thing for our side?

 

[bigred460]

The liberals/media think every morning when Trump wakes up it's a Constitutional Crisis.

 

[FalArAk]

It means that basically they want to hold a constitutional convention to re-write it.

 

[Picton]

A Consitutional Crisis, in this country, happens when one of the branches does something unconstitutional.

This time, they're referring to Trump failing to follow the Tren de Aragua court order to turn the planes around. Since the three branches are supposed to check and balance each other, this puts him into a Constitutional conflict because he's not letting the courts check him, and in the process he's unbalancing the whole government

So claims the left, on this issue. That's why it's in the news right now.

 

[CMEBoston]

The left cares about the constitution when it suits them.

 

[Davidk]

It is the same as "Assault Weapon". It is a made up term designed to scare the gullible and stupid.

 

[Dench]

The left cares about the constitution when it suits them.

Theres no shortage of case law that shows the right does it also.

Both sides play that game. Which is why we are exactly were we stand today.

 

[GM-GUY]

The left cares about the constitution when it suits them.

And only certain parts (especially parts that are inferred). Black Letter? Not so much.

 

[Jason m]

When the Federal government moved away from the 18 enumerated powers that they are in charge of and took over what the states regulated in my opinion that's when we went into a crisis, so basically all of my life and maybe most of yours.

 

[weekendracer]

Theres no shortage of case law that shows the right does it also.

Both sides play that game. Which is why we are exactly were we stand today.

Both sides play the game, but one side plays like the Yankees, the other like the Orioles.

 

[June4th]

We’re having a “John Marshall had his decision, now let him enforce it” moment.

Judiciary is the weakest of the three, as it has no money and no enforcement power. The power of the judiciary derives from the law and people’s respect of the law, and to some degree, people’s respect of judiciary’s moral authority.

The systemic problem troubles both sides depend on the issue. We have over a thousand federal judges in service and anyone can issue an injunction to halt the President’s order, and that’s just ridiculous from a system design point of view. On the other hand, we see leftist states thumb their noses at Bruen, and SCOTUS doesn’t do diddly squat about it.

 

[Uzi2]

Although there are three co equal branches of the federal government, there is nothing in the constitution that facilitates any one branch from enforcing/stopping the actions of the other two.

The Supreme Court's ability to stop the executive branch from performing actions doesn't exist, other than by suggestion. They cannot legislate (that's congress' job) and they cannot "police" as they have no police enforcement authority.

Congress makes the laws, The executive branch is charged with enforcing those laws.

The Supreme court can rule that a law is unconstitutional, and that "suggestion/ruling" is usually acknowledged by congress (to change or repeal such a law, and the executive branch will not usually enforce such a declared unconstitutional law.

There is no constitutional crisis with regard to President Trump deporting gang members or any other illegal alien, he has full and complete authority under the constitution to do so, and neither the congress, nor SCOTUS, nor any lower court federal judge has any authority to stop him. PERIOD....FULL STOP. END OF STORY.

The greatest crisis in this country with regard to the constitution is that the vast majority of people in this country have never read it and have absolutely no understanding of it.....this includes people elected to public office.
The left takes full advantage of this public ignorance in the spreading of their propaganda. The average dumbass on the street never develops enough intellectual curiosity to ever do even five minutes of research to "fact check" the lying, leftist media who fills their head with bullshit lies every day.

 

[Drix]

Everything I hear nowadays is about how we are heading to a Constitutional Crisis. Ok, but what does that really mean and what does it entail.

The real question though is whether it’s a bad thing for Conservatives or not. Generally a crisis has an end and does that mean a possible good thing for our side?

I can answer this for you- a constitutional crisis is slang the liberals throw around when the real world doesn't match their imaginary world.

As an example, trumps memo on interpreting law with the AG is considered a constitutional crisis to many, however, it is how the constitution is written- the president is the head mother f***er in charge of the executive branch of government, which interprets and enforces laws written by congress. If the interpretation is deemed wrong, it is done so through judicial review in the judicial branch of government.

 

[weekendracer]

Although there are three co equal branches of the federal government, there is nothing in the constitution that facilitates any one branch from enforcing/stopping the actions of the other two.

The Supreme Court's ability to stop the executive branch from performing actions doesn't exist, other than by suggestion. They cannot legislate (that's congress' job) and they cannot "police" as they have no police enforcement authority.

Congress makes the laws, The executive branch is charged with enforcing those laws.

The Supreme court can rule that a law is unconstitutional, and that "suggestion/ruling" is usually acknowledged by congress (to change or repeal such a law, and the executive branch will not usually enforce such a declared unconstitutional law.

There is no constitutional crisis with regard to President Trump deporting gange members, he has full and complete authority under the constitution to do so, and neither the congress, nor SCOTUS, nor any lower court federal judge has any authority to stop him. PERIOD....FULL STOP. END OF STORY.

The greatest crisis in this country with regard to the constitution is that the vast majority of people in this country have never read it and absolutely no understanding of it.....this includes people elected to public office.

More to the point, they were fine when their side openly flaunted the laws on the books. That was 'OK', but actually enforcing the rules is some sort of crisis.

 

[GL2020]

What I love about this supposed crisis is that for years we’ve been hearing immigration and enforcement is solely for the federal government. States have tried to do things like letting local police check immigration status. The left cried foul.

Ok so the federal government is now acting. And they have a problem with that too. Seems like they (at least tacitly) don’t want to do anything about illegal
Immigration. Or at a minimum want to bog it down with legal hurdles.

Gang members being shipped to El Salvador (or whenever it was)…I’m ok with telling a judge to go take a hike. Planes were already in the air when the order came down. He should make the case to bring them back and see how that goes.

 

[Uzi2]

What I love about this supposed crisis is that for years we’ve been hearing immigration and enforcement is solely for the federal government. States have tried to do things like letting local police check immigration status. The left cried foul.

Ok so the federal government is now acting. And they have a problem with that too. Seems like they (at least tacitly) don’t want to do anything about illegal
Immigration. Or at a minimum want to bog it down with legal hurdles.

Gang members being shipped to El Salvador (or whenever it was)…I’m ok with telling a judge to go take a hike. Planes were already in the air when the order came down. He should make the case to bring them back and see how that goes.

The authority to enforce immigration IS constitutionally designated solely to the executive branch of the federal government.

There are no legal hurdles that any state or local government official, or federal judge could possibly legally place to stop the executive from conducting activities to enforce the immigration laws.

Anything that any of those lesser officials say, or whatever the legislative or judicial branch of the federal government say can completely and legally be ignored by the president.

The democrats want illegal imigration....they want to screw up and overload the system.......they see illegals as their future voting base. Well, their plans are never going to see the light of day......and they know it.

 

[Uzi2]

More to the point, they were fine when their side openly flaunted the laws on the books. That was 'OK', but actually enforcing the rules is some sort of crisis.

Of course!!! They use the abject ignorance of the average American who doesn't know shit from Shinola about the function of government to spread emotional based propaganda.

 

[Dennis in MA]

The liberals/media think every morning when Trump wakes up it's a Constitutional Crisis.

No offense, but conservatives were kvetching the same thing from 2021-2025. It's bigger than the Sugar Bowl or hte Super Bowl. It's the HYPERBOLE!!!!

I had a client spend 2 hours asking, "What if Joe Biden suspends the US dollar and makes everyone go to a digital currency." "He can't do that on his own." "But if he did, who would stop him? I mean, who?"

 

[hminsky]

The left cares about the constitution when it suits them.

same with the right. You're falling into Steve Bannon's trap, getting attracted by the bright shiny object ("ooooh, gang members being coddled"), while a hundred other operations are taking place that shred the constitution's checks and balances. Congress is supposed to pass laws, and the executive branch
enforce them. Part of that is allocating money for programs, such as, let's say, the EPA or department of Education. Whether or not you like them,
they are funded by law, and if the President guts them such that they cannot effectively carry out their charter, then that's a constitutional conflict.
If he ignores the courts when they tell him he's breaking a law, thats the crisis.

If you don't want a program or department funded , Congress is supposed to have that power, not the President.

And sure, Democratic executives abused that power, does not make it OK when Republican does it. That's the reasoning of a five year old, "Johnny stole cookies, so I can too!"

 

[bigred460]

No offense, but conservatives were kvetching the same thing from 2021-2025. It's bigger than the Sugar Bowl or hte Super Bowl. It's the HYPERBOLE!!!!

I had a client spend 2 hours asking, "What if Joe Biden suspends the US dollar and makes everyone go to a digital currency." "He can't do that on his own." "But if he did, who would stop him? I mean, who?"

I don't doubt it. Just haven't heard conservatives screeching the phrase like I hear the liberals do.

 

[Rockrivr1]

There is no constitutional crisis with regard to President Trump deporting gange members, he has full and complete authority under the constitution to do so, and neither the congress, nor SCOTUS, nor any lower court federal judge has any authority to stop him. PERIOD....FULL STOP. END OF STORY.

The greatest crisis in this country with regard to the constitution is that the vast majority of people in this country have never read it and have absolutely no understanding of it.....this includes people elected to public office.
The left takes full advantage of this public ignorance in the spreading of their propaganda. The average dumbass on the street never develops enough intellectual curiosity to ever do even five minutes of research to "fact check" the lying, leftist media who fills their head with bullshit lies every day.

You know this is a really good point. I've got a pocket constitution in my desk draw I'm sitting at now and have read it several times. BUT, I haven't read the whole Constitution, hence my question on whether there was a section addressing a crisis. I'm going by the answers here that the answer is no, and we are basically making it up as we go.

What I'd like to see happen is Trump thumb his nose at the Judicial system and keep up the good work. Though once the mid terms hit and by chance Rs lose both houses then Impeachment becomes a realistic outcome. Basically Trump has two years of just being the biggest disruptor possible. The future is uncertain but at least there are two years he can keep going.

 

[Obie1]

We’re having a “John Marshall had his decision, now let him enforce it” moment.

Judiciary is the weakest of the three, as it has no money and no enforcement power. The power of the judiciary derives from the law and people’s respect of the law, and to some degree, people’s respect of judiciary’s moral authority.

The systemic problem troubles both sides depend on the issue. We have over a thousand federal judges in service and anyone can issue an injunction to halt the President’s order, and that’s just ridiculous from a system design point of view. On the other hand, we see leftist states thumb their noses at Bruen, and SCOTUS doesn’t do diddly squat about it.

Point taken, but it should be noted that no presidential scholar believes that Jackson actually uttered those words, and the circumstances of the Worcester decision are such that it would have made no sense in that context. The quotation is most commonly attributed to 1864 book by Horace Greeley.

 

[AppleSeeds]

Generally a constitutional crisis is when different branches overstep the confines of their defined power. The entire constitution is built around separation of powers. Who is overstepping is surely a debate but to my eye it sure looks like the Judiciary thinks they have Executive Branch powers and many seem to think their geographic jurisdiction is much bigger than it actually is (nationwide injunctions coming out of lower courts for example).

 

[Obie1]

More to the point, they were fine when their side openly flaunted the laws on the books. That was 'OK', but actually enforcing the rules is some sort of crisis.

One flouts laws but flaunts pedantic vocabulary knowledge. Sorry, I promised my wife upon retirement after 42 years as an editor that I would stop correcting people. It remains most decidedly an as-yet unachieved goal.

 

[556USER]

What is a Constitutional crisis? Well, John Adams said, “Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

In my opinion he meant that it won't work if those who are in positions of responsibility in government fail to abide by what is essentially an honor system. That in essence is what the founders set up. Having said that, there are also times when the Constitution just does not cover a given legal conflict. Legislation or Constitutional Convention should be used clarify the law to remediate the issue if the parties cannot agree.

 

[weekendracer]

One flouts laws but flaunts pedantic vocabulary knowledge. Sorry, I promised my wife upon retirement after 42 years as an editor that I would stop correcting people. It remains most decidedly an as-yet unachieved goal.

 

[weekendracer]

same with the right. You're falling into Steve Bannon's trap, getting attracted by the bright shiny object ("ooooh, gang members being coddled"), while a hundred other operations are taking place that shred the constitution's checks and balances. Congress is supposed to pass laws, and the executive branch
enforce them. Part of that is allocating money for programs, such as, let's say, the EPA or department of Education. Whether or not you like them,
they are funded by law, and if the President guts them such that they cannot effectively carry out their charter, then that's a constitutional conflict.
If he ignores the courts when they tell him he's breaking a law, thats the crisis.

If you don't want a program or department funded , Congress is supposed to have that power, not the President.

And sure, Democratic executives abused that power, does not make it OK when Republican does it. That's the reasoning of a five year old, "Johnny stole cookies, so I can too!"

The thing is, these gangbangers are 'inadmissible' not 'deportable'. By exacting reading of the law, they are not technically, legally speaking even allowed to be inside the boundary of the United States. They don't have the same legal protections a 'deportable' person has. A 'deportable' alien is subject to removal and fights that fight. An 'inadmissible' alien has to legally fight just to enter the US.

There's a whole script of legal crap I can post here, but that's the Reader's Digest (tm) version.

Edit: dammit, I hate you guys.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid%3AUSC-prelim-title8-section1182&num=0&edition=prelim

Read through that, you'll find what I'm talking about. There's more to it, legal precedent, court agreements, you know the drill, but that's it at its legal face.

Also, again I hate you guys for putting me in this rabbit hole, those are actual criminal charges, not 'administrative' charges.

 

[Dennis in MA]

same with the right. You're falling into Steve Bannon's trap, getting attracted by the bright shiny object ("ooooh, gang members being coddled"), while a hundred other operations are taking place that shred the constitution's checks and balances. Congress is supposed to pass laws, and the executive branch
enforce them. Part of that is allocating money for programs, such as, let's say, the EPA or department of Education. Whether or not you like them,
they are funded by law, and if the President guts them such that they cannot effectively carry out their charter, then that's a constitutional conflict.
If he ignores the courts when they tell him he's breaking a law, thats the crisis.

If you don't want a program or department funded , Congress is supposed to have that power, not the President.

And sure, Democratic executives abused that power, does not make it OK when Republican does it. That's the reasoning of a five year old, "Johnny stole cookies, so I can too!"

Stop bringing logic, fact and reason into this post-of-feelings. LOL

 

[Uzi2]

same with the right. You're falling into Steve Bannon's trap, getting attracted by the bright shiny object ("ooooh, gang members being coddled"), while a hundred other operations are taking place that shred the constitution's checks and balances. Congress is supposed to pass laws, and the executive branch
enforce them. Part of that is allocating money for programs, such as, let's say, the EPA or department of Education. Whether or not you like them,
they are funded by law, and if the President guts them such that they cannot effectively carry out their charter, then that's a constitutional conflict.
If he ignores the courts when they tell him he's breaking a law, thats the crisis.

If you don't want a program or department funded , Congress is supposed to have that power, not the President.

And sure, Democratic executives abused that power, does not make it OK when Republican does it. That's the reasoning of a five year old, "Johnny stole cookies, so I can too!"

Yes, congress allocates monies......but the president has full authority to divert spending as he sees fit for the benefit of the nation. Diverting money from programs that are provably unnecessary and full of fraud waste and abuse is EXACTLY what needs to be done.
Democrats don't like it because it's ending their gravy train. Democrats can suck it.....they've just about ruined this country and it's long past time they be reined in and put on a very short leash, with every aspect of their activities under close scrutiny.

 

[Dennis in MA]

Under the ICA, spending deferrals must not extend beyond the current fiscal year, and Congress can override deferrals using an expedited process. For recissions, the president must propose such actions to Congress for approval, and he can delay spending-related to recissions for 45 days. Unless Congress approves the recission request, the funds must be released for spending.

As much as I would like Trump to make massive cuts to spending.

1. It's against the constitution and the ICA74 that was written so that no president could even BOTHER to try and do the things Nixon did.

2. Is a drop in the bucket. You could cut $100B off the federal budget in one action - audit how California is spending their Medicaid $'s. $100B. Over 10% of Medicaid beneficiaries are people in Cali that are ABOVE the average Medicaid recipients per state. (Cali has double the recipients as the average. With the largest population, the EXCESS recipients is greater than 10% of ALL US recipients!) This shuffling deck-chairs on the titanic thing is a waste of time.


I will give you the Chuck Schumer/Hairy-Reed caution - tit for tat. Go ahead and change something. And then be SHOCKED when "the other team" decides to play by YOUR rules.