The constitutional crisis is not a global accepted definition, but legal scholars agree on some of its features. This is usually the product of the presidential discrimination of laws and judicial decisions. It’s not binary: it’s a slope, not switch. It can be overall, and once it begins, it can be very bad.
Aaron Champrinesky, Dean of La School of California, Berkeley, also said it could also be clear.
He said on Friday, “We are still in the middle of the constitutional crisis. He said that many unconstitutional and illegal actions have been taken in the first 18 days of Trump’s presidency. We have never seen anything like that.
He dismissed President Trump’s lawlessness behavior, canceling birthright citizenship, freezing federal spending, closure of an agency, dismissing leaders of other agencies, protecting civil servants civil services Conducting and threatening to deport people on the basis of their political views and threaten and threaten to deport people on the basis of their political views.
This is a partial list, and it increases in the day, said Professor Champersky. “Organized unconstitutional and illegal acts create a constitutional crisis,” he said.
Several legal scholars said that the specific feature of the current situation is a flood of chaos of its activity, which collectively equates a basic new concept of presidential power. But the volume and speed of these actions can be overwhelmed and thus it can thwart it and the judicial consideration is measured.
For a challenge to reach Mr. Trump’s Supreme Court, it will probably take some time, in just weeks. So far, it has not openly opened the lower court orders, which has temporarily stopped some of its actions, and it remains to be seen whether he will violate any decision against him by the judges.
“It is an open question whether the administration will be as contempt of the courts as it has been from the Congress and the Constitution,” said Kate Shaw, a professor of law at the University of Pennsylvania. “At least so far, this has not happened.”
Professor Shaw said that a confrontation with the courts would only increase a crisis that is already going on. “The new administration’s executive orders and other executive actions are a clear violation of the laws enforced by the Congress,” he said.
He added, “Early actions of the administration, the basic constitutional values, namely the separation of powers, the freedom of speech, the law is also designed to show maximum humiliation for equal justice under the law.”
Stanford law professor Pamela Carlin added that clashes between federal government branches do not require a crisis.
He said, “This is a constitutional crisis when the United States president does not care that the Constitution is, regardless of that the Congress or the courts resist any special unconstitutional action.” “So far, although presidents can especially engage in activities that were unconstitutional, I never realized that there was a president for whom the constitution was basically meaningless.”
The courts, in any case, may not be inclined or equipped to push back. A lot is happening, and so fast, even the final orders of the Supreme Court that reject Mr Trump’s arguments can come too late. After separating the US Agency for International Development or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, no judicial decision can be regenerated.
In many cases, of course, the six -member conservative majority of the Supreme Court can accept Mr Trump’s arguments. Her Decision in July Giving him a considerable immunity from the prosecution, a vast ideology of the presidency was accepted, which could only encourage him.
For example, members of this majority are likely to accept the president’s position that he is free to fire the leaders of independent agencies.
However, the court may issue a preliminary, faster decision against Mr Trump to send a signal about his power and freedom. The termination of Mr Trump’s order will be known to be a good candidate for immigrants to refuse citizenship, as it contradicts the traditional understanding of the constitution and the court’s example.
Such a decision will have an additional benefit: it will be difficult to disobey. From its early days, the Supreme Court has been cautious to issuing decisions that can be ignored.
“I was reminded Marbury vs MedicineWhen the government did not bother to disclose before the Supreme Court to defend its post, he would make any judicial order committed against it, said Amanda Frast, a professor of Virginia University law.
Even when the court ruled that Thomas Jefferson’s administration had worked illegally, he said, “The court carefully prepared its opinion in the matter to avoid the decision to comply with the executive branch. Could go. “
Since the decision of 1803, a lot has changed, and the Supreme Court’s stature and authority have increased. Professor Frost said, “However,” the Congress could be difficult to defend the laws enforced by the Congress by the Congress, when the Republican -controlled Congress also refused to do so. “
Professor Carlin said he feared that the judge would rule Mr Trump that he would ignore decisions that reject his positions. “The idea that the courts should abandon their responsibilities and maintain the power of power, will make the constitutional crisis even worse,” he said.
Mr Trump has already ignored a Supreme Court decision, which supported the federal law last month in his decision, which was approved by bilateral bilateral majority, which has sold or banned Techtok. Needed. Instead of Mr. Trump The Department of Justice ordered For not implementing the law for 75 days, presenting the move as an authority, “its unique constitutional responsibility for the United States’ national security.”
The denial of Supreme Court decisions is not heard. For example, the southern states refused to follow for years Brown vs Board of EducationIn the 1954 decision, which banned separation from public schools, known as “widespread resistance”.
The gray decision is now now seen as a great success globally globally. But by its implementation, President Dutt Dewan Haower had to decide to decide to exclude members of the 101st Airbourne Division with Little Rock, Arc, angry white Moby.
Not all the presidents gave the same respect to the court’s decisions. In 1832, President Andrew Jackson refused to impose Supreme Court decision The conflict between the Georgia and the Cherokee nation was born. Regarding Chief Justice John Marshal, Jackson is often attributed to a strong but still strong comment: “John Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it.
Before the end of this week, Mr Venus has said that Mr Trump should ignore the Supreme Court. In an interview of 2021, he said that Mr Trump should “dismiss every civilian employee of the administrative state, every middle -lever bureaucrat” and “replace them with his people.”
He added: “When the courts stop you, Andrew Jackson stood in front of the country and said,” The Chief Justice has given his order. Now let him enforce it. “
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Junior took note of such threats Report at the end of its year In December
He wrote, “Every administration suffers defeat in the judicial system – sometimes in matters of great usefulness for executive or legislative power or other fruitful topics.” “Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decades of the courts, the popular or not, has been followed, and the nation has avoided standing on the 1950s and 1960s.”
The Chief Justice added, “However, in the past few years,” elected officials from across the political arena have tried to openly ignore federal court decisions. These dangerous suggestions, however, should be well rejected.
There are many supporters in this theory, though some use. A conservative legal commentator, Ed Willen, “in a case that is irrational in the jurisdiction of the court, refusing a real (unstable, influence) of a federal court for a president There will be a very serious matter. ” Written on social media.
But considering a conflict can depend on an outdated parable.
Bob Bauer and Jack Goldsmith wrote, “One way to see the administration’s attack on legal barriers is that it is trying to set ‘test cases’ for the Supreme Court’s favorable decisions and to win ‘test cases’. “” Executive functions Newsletter. “But the general test case was carefully prepared, with the basis of some good faith, a legal or a law -maker challenge for the law.”
Mr Goldsmith is a law professor in Harvard and a former Justice Department of Justice in the George W. Bush administration. Mr Bauer was a White House lawyer for President Barack Obama. He is a student of Article II of the Constitution, who sets the powers of the president.
He wrote that Mr. Trump’s executive orders have some features that show that he means to examine legal views in the Supreme Court. He added, “But overall,” like a program of a program, in the form of law violations, for a small constitutional convention to ‘edit’ on a wider front, “he added.
