Law & Policy Blog: Are We In A Constitutional Crisis Or Not?
a Law & Policy Blog feature
You’re probably hearing the phrase “constitutional crisis” being thrown around a bit and whether or not we’re in one. Here’s a great explainer from The Law & Policy Blog on what that is exactly for those who don’t know. It’s a very big deal …
The reason is about court orders, and about the response to court orders by the federal government.
Disagreements between the executive and the courts are not, by themselves a crisis. They are tensions. And constitutions exist so as to regulate and resolve those tensions. That is what constitutions do.
And loud shouts and boasts and threats by the executive about what they will do with the courts are also not by themselves a crisis, though they may well be dramatic. Such bluster can be accompanied by the quiet compliance with court orders, and the noise is just for the claps and cheers of supporters.
Where such tension and drama flips into a crisis is when there is is open, seemingly inconsequential defiance of court orders by the executive.
That means the constitution can no longer do its its job of regulating and resolving tensions between the executive and the courts, for that role presupposes that the executive will comply with unwelcome court orders until and unless those orders are set aside.
Once court orders are freely ignored by the executive, it is a form of constitutional ‘game over’.
The federal government does not (and should not) get to gainsay whether the court is acting inside or outside its jurisdiction or has made some legal error. That is for a superior court, and not for internal White House lawyers and press spokespeople to take upon themselves.
Even taking what the White House is saying at its highest, they are still acting unconstitutionally.
Read more here …
