Omar Bennett
A constitutional crisis is a conflict over political power that threatens to undermine or destroy the foundational institutional structure of government established by the constitution. While there is no universally accepted definition, legal scholars agree that it is generally the product of presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings. It is not binary but rather a slope, and once it starts, it can quickly escalate. The US has experienced several constitutional crises, including the secession of the southern states in 1860 and 1861, and some scholars argue that the actions of the Trump administration in early 2025, such as attempts to shut down agencies without congressional authorization, constituted a constitutional crisis.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings | Shutting down agencies without congressional authorization, refusing to spend money as appropriated by Congress, defying court orders |
| Chaotic flood of activity that collectively amounts to a new conception of presidential power | Revoking birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, removing leaders of agencies, threatening to deport people based on political views |
| Flaws in the Constitution | Expanded presidential powers, erosion of voting rights |
| Political dysfunction | Undisguised attacks on the constitutional order, deepening authoritarianism |
| Lack of transparency | Secrecy surrounding the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings
A constitutional crisis in the United States can occur when the president defies the laws and judicial rulings. While there is no universally accepted definition of a constitutional crisis, legal scholars agree that it is generally the product of presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings. It is not binary but rather a slope, and it can be cumulative, with the volume and speed of unconstitutional actions potentially overwhelming the judiciary.
The Trump administration has been accused of causing a constitutional crisis by attempting to shut down agencies without congressional authorization, refusing to spend money as appropriated by Congress, defying court orders, and taking other systematic unconstitutional and illegal actions. These actions have demonstrated a new theory of executive power, with Trump asserting that "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law."
Some commentators have argued that presidential defiance of a federal judge's order on the detention of immigrants or the defiance of Supreme Court rulings could constitute a constitutional crisis. For example, in the case of Trump's attempts to roll back birthright citizenship, four federal judges blocked his order, with one judge calling it a "blatantly unconstitutional order."
However, it is important to note that the legislative branch could censure a president who openly defies the laws passed by Congress. Additionally, historically, presidents have obeyed court decisions, and the judiciary's role is to uphold the rule of law and constitutional principles, not to save democracy.
In conclusion, while presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings can contribute to a constitutional crisis, it is a complex and multifaceted issue that involves the actions of multiple branches of government and the interpretation of the Constitution.
The Constitution: Our Guide to Participatory Democracy
You may want to see also
Attempts to shut down agencies without congressional authorization
A constitutional crisis can occur when a government wants to pass a law that goes against the constitution, when the constitution fails to provide clear answers to a specific situation, or when government institutions falter or fail to live up to the law's prescriptions. Some politicians and legal scholars have argued that certain actions taken by the administration of President Donald Trump constituted a constitutional crisis. This includes attempts to shut down agencies without congressional authorization, such as USAID.
The customary method by which agencies of the US government are created, abolished, consolidated, or divided is through an act of Congress. Congress is vested with "all legislative powers" by Article One, Section 1 of the United States Constitution, and cannot delegate that power to anyone else. However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928) that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress and is constitutional as long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch.
The presidential reorganization authority is a statutory power that has been temporarily extended by Congress to the President, permitting the President to take actions to reorganize government agencies by decree, subject to limited legislative oversight. This authority was first granted in 1932 and has been extended to nine presidents on 16 separate occasions. It allows the President to make significant and sweeping modifications to the government's organizational structure, which might otherwise be too substantial to implement through the parliamentary process.
Despite this delegated authority, attempts to shut down agencies without congressional authorization can still lead to a constitutional crisis. This is because the presidential reorganization authority is subject to limited legislative oversight, and reorganization plans can be nullified by an act of Congress during a fixed window of time. In the case of USAID, for example, Trump's attempt to shut it down without congressional authorization was met with criticism and concerns about a potential constitutional crisis.
The threat of a constitutional crisis due to attempts to shut down agencies without congressional authorization highlights the delicate balance between the executive and legislative branches of the US government. It underscores the importance of adhering to constitutional principles and the potential consequences when those principles are perceived to be violated.
Little League Constitution: Rules and Regulations Explained
You may want to see also
Secession of US states
A constitutional crisis arises when there is a legal ambiguity in the constitution, and the government, officials, or institutions fail to uphold the constitutional rights that guide the resolution of conflicts. Some commentators and politicians have argued that the US has faced several constitutional crises, with the most recent one occurring during the administration of President Donald Trump, whose actions included attempts to shut down agencies without congressional authorization and to defy court orders.
One notable example of a constitutional crisis in American history was the secession of southern US states in 1860 and 1861, also known as the pre-War secession crisis. This crisis centred around the issue of states' rights and the question of whether a state could constitutionally secede from the Union. While some argued that the Union was a voluntary association of states, with the right to secede, others, including historian Kenneth Stampp, contended that the Union was older than the states and that secession was not constitutionally sanctioned.
The secession crisis came to a head during the presidential term of James Buchanan, who, in his final State of the Union address in 1860, acknowledged the South's right to "revolutionary resistance" if peaceful and constitutional means failed. This crisis ultimately led to the American Civil War, as Southern states sought to preserve their way of life, including the institution of slavery, which they believed was under threat from the North.
Earlier instances of secessionist sentiment in the US include the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, which reserved the rights of secession and interposition (nullification) to those states. In 1828, South Carolina threatened to secede due to the Tariff of Abominations, which adversely affected its economy, and again in 1850 over the issue of California's statehood.
While the US Constitution does not explicitly provide for secession, some argued that if a state's rights were not secured by the government, it was the natural right of the people of that state to separate themselves from their oppressors. This sentiment was echoed by Thomas Jefferson, who, while serving as Vice President in 1799, expressed his conviction in the preservation of states' rights in the face of what he saw as violations by the federal government.
The Preamble's Goals: Understanding the Constitution's Foundation
You may want to see also
Explore related products
$12.99 $13.99
Presidential succession
A constitutional crisis in the US can be defined as the product of presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings. While there is no universally accepted definition, it generally involves the government wanting to pass a law that goes against the constitution, or the constitution failing to provide a clear answer for a specific situation.
Now, in terms of presidential succession, the US Constitution makes several references to the presidential line of succession. The vice president is designated as first in the line of succession, as outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6, also known as the Presidential Succession Clause. This clause also authorises Congress to establish a line of succession beyond the vice president, which they have done on three occasions.
The Presidential Succession Act was first adopted in 1792, and the most recent version was enacted in 1947, with revisions made as recently as 2006. The Act establishes the order of succession, which includes congressional officers, followed by members of the Cabinet, provided they meet the constitutional requirements to serve as president. These requirements, outlined in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, state that an individual must be a natural-born citizen of the United States, be at least 35 years old, and have resided in the country for at least 14 years.
The 25th Amendment, adopted in 1967, also establishes procedures for filling a vacancy in the office of the vice president. It is important to note that while the vice president assumes the "powers and duties" of the presidency in the event of the president's removal, death, resignation, or inability, there has been ambiguity around whether the vice president becomes the president or simply acts as president until a new election.
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, highlighted the importance of having a designated successor, as it demonstrated the potential for an event that could result in the loss of multiple individuals in the line of succession. This has been a long-standing practice, particularly during events where high-ranking federal officers are gathered, to ensure a smooth transfer of power if needed.
Foreign Financial Accounts: What Counts?
You may want to see also
Political dysfunction and decay
The US Constitution is a foundational document that establishes the rules and principles of the nation's government. It outlines the powers and responsibilities of the federal government, including the executive, legislative, and judicial branches, and it protects the fundamental rights of citizens. However, the US Constitution is not static; it has been amended several times throughout history to address societal changes and evolving interpretations of rights and liberties.
In recent years, there have been growing concerns about political dysfunction and decay in the United States, which have contributed to a sense of constitutional crisis. This dysfunction has been characterised by a flurry of executive orders, pardons, and attempts to alter or eliminate executive agencies. The Trump administration has been accused of undermining the rule of law and democratic norms through systematic unconstitutional and illegal acts, such as revoking birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, shutting down agencies, and removing leaders of those agencies. These actions have been described as a "chaotic flood" that collectively amounts to a radically new conception of presidential power.
The US Constitution relies on a system of checks and balances between the three branches of government to prevent the accumulation of power in one branch. However, the political dysfunction has been exacerbated by a passive response to these attacks on the constitutional order and a deepening of authoritarianism. The Supreme Court has also played a role in expanding presidential powers and eroding voting rights, further contributing to the sense of political decay.
Additionally, the political dysfunction has been characterised by a lack of transparency, particularly regarding the activities of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), an initiative led by Elon Musk aimed at reducing federal spending. This lack of transparency has made it difficult for citizens and watchdogs to understand and critique the actions of the government, further contributing to the sense of political decay and dysfunction.
The US Constitution is facing a significant test during this period of political dysfunction and decay. While some commentators and legal scholars argue that the US is already in the midst of a constitutional crisis, others caution against hyperbolic language and emphasise the need for a measured understanding of the situation. However, there is a consensus that the country is navigating a critical period, and the outcome will have significant implications for the future of American democracy and the legitimacy of its political order.
Exploring Death's Door: Zero Constitution and Survival
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
A constitutional crisis is a conflict over political power that threatens to undermine or destroy the logic and foundational institutional structure of government established by the Constitution.
Some examples of constitutional crises in the US include the secession of the southern states in 1860 and 1861, the dismissal of the Australian federal government in 1975, and the 2007 Ukrainian crisis.
Some signs of a constitutional crisis include presidential defiance of laws and judicial rulings, attempts to shut down agencies without congressional authorization, and the erosion of voting rights.
A constitutional crisis typically ends with a resolution that establishes a legal precedent to guide future crises of constitutional administration.
There is no universal agreement on whether or not we are currently in a constitutional crisis. Some legal scholars and commentators argue that the actions of the Trump administration, such as defying court orders and attempting to shut down agencies, have created a constitutional crisis. However, others disagree and caution against using hyperbolic language.
