Omar Bennett
A constitutional crisis is a relative term that lacks a universal definition. It occurs when one or more parties to a political dispute willingly violate a law of the constitution, dispute the interpretation of a constitutional law, or fail to uphold the constitution. While the United States has likely not experienced a constitutional crisis, it has come close, with some arguing that the second Trump administration's actions represented an aggressive assault on American governance. The phrase constitutional crisis should be used with caution, as it can foster confrontation where none exists. However, it is important to recognize the dangers of democratic erosion, such as election subversion and executive aggrandizement, and the role of civil society in safeguarding democracy.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | "A new interpretation of a constitution or a new action that threatens the expected agreements that made it standing, that had allowed for consensus and a constitution to be viable, agreed upon by all various parties that are involved in a system of government." |
| Examples | A government may want to pass a law contrary to its constitution; the constitution may fail to provide a clear answer for a specific situation; the constitution may be clear, but it may be politically infeasible to follow it; the government institutions themselves may falter or fail to live up to what the law prescribes them to be; or officials in the government may justify avoiding dealing with a serious problem based on narrow interpretations of the law. |
| Causes | Conflicts between different branches of government, conflicts between central and local governments, or conflicts among various factions within society. |
| Solutions | Contact Congressional representatives to voice concerns; contact state attorneys general to urge lawsuits on the basis of breaches in the Constitution. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Presidential actions and war
The Declare War Clause, found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, states that "Congress shall have the power... To declare war." However, this clause has been subject to various interpretations, with some arguing that it only applies to formal declarations of war and not to all use of military force. In addition, the meaning of "war" itself has been contested, with debates over what types of military actions constitute a state of war.
Throughout US history, there have been several instances where presidents have initiated military action without explicit congressional approval. For example, President George W. Bush's decision to send troops to Iraq without a declaration of war and President Truman's deployment of troops to Korea, which he characterised as a "police action" rather than a war, are cited as examples of potential constitutional crises. These actions raise questions about the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches and the extent of presidential authority in initiating military conflicts.
The War Powers Resolution of 1973 was enacted by Congress to address concerns about presidential overreach in military matters. It aimed to rein in presidential misuses of military power and clarify the requirements for congressional approval and reporting. However, even after the passage of the War Powers Resolution, debates and controversies over the interpretation of the Declare War Clause and the extent of presidential war powers have persisted.
Some scholars and commentators argue that presidential use of military force can be justified under certain conditions, such as when authorised by Congress, when acting under the authority of the United Nations, or when engaging in peacekeeping or defensive deployments that do not rise to the level of war. However, there have been instances where presidents have exceeded these limits, such as when President Clinton continued bombing campaigns beyond authorised timelines or when President Obama authorised military action in Libya without explicit congressional approval.
In conclusion, the issue of presidential actions and war has been a significant aspect of constitutional crises in the United States. The interpretation of the Declare War Clause and the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches continue to be a subject of debate and controversy. While mechanisms like the War Powers Resolution aim to provide checks and balances, the ambiguity surrounding the initiation of military conflicts remains a challenge in ensuring adherence to constitutional principles.
Abortion and the Constitution: What's the Connection?
You may want to see also
Congress and federal funding
A constitutional crisis can occur when there is a conflict between different branches of the government, such as the executive branch and Congress. In the United States, there have been instances where the executive branch has taken actions, such as waging war without congressional approval, which could be considered a constitutional crisis. For example, former President Bush approved a bill that authorised him to send troops to Iraq without seeking a declaration of war from Congress. Similarly, former President Truman deployed troops to Korea without a Congressional declaration of war, labelling it a "police action". These actions can be seen as the executive branch absorbing the powers of the legislative branch, which is a departure from the traditional separation of powers and a potential threat to democratic norms.
The role of Congress in federal funding is a critical aspect of its legislative powers. Congress is responsible for creating funding bills, which are then sent to the president for approval or veto. This process involves the House and the Senate creating their own budget resolutions, which are then negotiated and merged into a single version of each funding bill. The legislative branch's power to control federal funding, often referred to as the "power of the purse," is a significant check on the executive branch.
However, in recent years, there have been concerns about the erosion of this power. The Trump administration's federal funding freeze, approved by Congress, has been interpreted as a shift in the balance of power. While Congress traditionally holds the power to make laws, the interpretation of how these laws are executed and enforced has expanded, particularly regarding federal funding distribution. This interpretation has evolved since the founding of the Constitution and continues to grow, potentially impacting the ability of Congress to effectively utilise the "power of the purse" as a check on the executive branch.
The implications of these shifts in power are significant. A strong civil society has historically served as a backstop to democratic erosion in the United States. However, many institutions within civil society, such as the media, academia, business, and mass voluntary organisations, have weakened in their response to recent assaults on the Constitution. As a result, there may be a reduced capacity to counterbalance the consolidation of power in unaccountable institutions or the elimination of governmental "checks and balances".
In conclusion, the relationship between Congress and federal funding is a critical aspect of the legislative branch's powers. While Congress traditionally holds the "power of the purse," recent interpretations and actions by the executive branch have challenged this dynamic. These shifts have potential implications for democratic governance and the ability of civil society to act as a safeguard against constitutional crises.
The Constitution's Core Claims: Understanding America's Founding Principles
You may want to see also
Election subversion
Richard L. Hasen outlines three main avenues for election subversion in the United States:
- Disqualify votes where a partisan body justifies changing the outcome.
- Employ fraudulent or suppressive election administration.
- Disrupt the voting, the counting of votes, or the assumption of power by the true winner.
Many efforts at election subversion involve promoting false claims of election fraud before, during, and after the attempt. Rules that make voting more difficult for some can become a pretext for disqualifying votes, regardless of whether or not it justifies such a radical action.
The three main election subversion strategies build on each other to create a snowball effect, ultimately preventing rightful election winners from taking office:
- Deceive: Bad-faith influencers, mainly in media and politics, spread disinformation to erode voter confidence in the election and seed narratives about voter fraud during and after the election.
- Disrupt: These actors call on their supporters to meddle in the election administration and voting process to establish a pretext for disregarding the election outcome, primarily by raising unfounded false allegations of fraud and introducing chaos and uncertainty into the system.
- Deny: Finally, referencing the distrust and disruption they have created, these actors will attempt to interfere with or halt the certification process to disregard the outcome of the popular vote and declare the true result untrue, unknown, or unknowable.
The election denial movement is organized around the false idea that elections in the United States are rigged by unseen forces. This movement gained prominence after the 2020 presidential election, when Donald Trump refused to accept his defeat and made unsubstantiated claims of widespread fraud.
In Georgia, Arizona, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, and other key battleground states, lawmakers have passed laws inviting partisan interference in election administration or electoral outcomes. For example, in Georgia, the Republican-controlled State Election Board voted to give county boards the unprecedented authority to second-guess election officials before certifying election results. This move could pave the way for unwarranted delays and refusals to certify adverse votes.
In conclusion, election subversion is a serious threat to democratic principles, and it is important for Americans to remain vigilant and strengthen legal safeguards to prevent such subversion.
Georgia's Runoff Rules Explained
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Presidential succession
A constitutional crisis can arise from conflicts between different branches of government, conflicts between central and local governments, or conflicts among various factions within society. One example of a constitutional crisis involving presidential succession occurred in Malawi in 2012, when the President and Vice-President were from different parties, leading to a dispute over the rightful successor.
In the United States, the Presidential Succession Act outlines the presidential line of succession in the event of a vacancy in the office of the President. The Act has been enacted by Congress on three occasions: 1792, 1886, and 1947, with the 1947 Act last revised in 2006. The 25th Amendment to the Constitution also addresses presidential disability and succession, specifying that in the case of the removal, death, or resignation of the President, the Vice President shall become President.
The Presidential Succession Act establishes the order of succession as follows: the Vice President, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of the Senate, and the Secretary of State. In the event that the Vice President is unable to serve, the President nominates a new Vice President, who takes office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress. This process ensures a clear line of succession and prevents confusion during critical times.
The Presidential Succession Act also addresses situations where the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of the office. In such cases, the President can transmit a written declaration to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Vice President will assume the powers and duties of the President as Acting President. Congress then has the authority to decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours if not already in session. If, within twenty-one days, two-thirds of both Houses of Congress determine that the President is unable to perform their duties, the Vice President continues as Acting President.
The United States has faced several instances where the actions of the executive branch, such as waging war without congressional approval, have been considered a constitutional crisis. These situations highlight the importance of established procedures for presidential succession, ensuring stability and continuity in times of uncertainty.
Exploring Religious Freedom in Russia's Constitution
You may want to see also
Rule of law
A constitutional crisis is a situation in which the fundamental principles of governance, primarily the Constitution in the US, are threatened, undermined, or unable to resolve political conflicts. Such crises can manifest in several forms, including overreach by government powers beyond constitutional limits or conflicting interpretations of the Constitution.
The rule of law in the United States is based on a system of checks and balances and clear processes for deciding contested principles. This stems from the notion that the legal system and processes should be stable and that no one person can decide on their own what the Constitution means or that a law adopted by Congress should be ignored. This is a fundamental principle of American democracy that has been an aspirational model for US citizens and other countries.
However, as recent events have shown, the rule of law is not self-executing. It requires government actors, civil society, and individual citizens to stand up and defend it. For example, state governments and federal courts are currently suing the Trump administration over its actions that allegedly violate constitutional principles, such as defying a judicial order to unfreeze billions of dollars in federal aid.
Historically, the US has been fortunate to have a strong civil society, but many of these institutions have weakened in recent years. It is essential that these institutions coordinate to provide a public counterweight to the government and defend the rule of law.
Additionally, education plays a crucial role in upholding the rule of law. As David Gans, a director at the Constitutional Accountability Center, noted, recent times necessitate more education on the government and systems that define US democracy. This includes understanding the historical context of constitutional crises, such as the Civil War in 1861, which raised questions about the rights of states to leave the Union and the fundamental principles of the Constitution.
The Constitution and Political Parties: How Many Mentions?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A constitutional crisis occurs when there is a conflict between different branches of government, between central and local governments, or between factions within society. This may involve violating a law of the constitution, disputing the interpretation of a constitutional law, or threatening the expected agreements that allowed for a consensus and a constitution to be viable.
Examples of constitutional crises include the South African Coloured vote constitutional crisis in the 1950s, the secession of the southern U.S. states in 1860-1861, the dismissal of the Australian federal government in 1975, and the 2007 Ukrainian crisis.
The American Political Science Review is a publication that covers a range of political science topics. For example, Volume 15 includes an article on the rules of procedure in legislative bodies becoming weapons of political and personal warfare, with a focus on the American Congress.
