What exactly do they mean by "Constitutional Crisis"?

[napi21]

I've heard this several times in the pastseveral weeks andagain just now, Bernie Sanders said "If Shrub were to attack Iraq without first getting authorization authorization from congress, we'd then have a REAL Constitutional Crisis."

What does THAT mean?

[Rainscents]

I'm guessing...

Bush will create "Marshall Law" here at home. Whatever little rights we do have right now, will go out the door.

[Golden Raisin]

9. Martial law. And yes, what few rights we have left

will go out the door and we'll go through the gates of the waiting Halliburton "detention centers".

[dysfunctional press]

1. the crisis for them would be that they would actually have to read the thing...

to figure out how to handle the situation.

[orleans]

2. kick. n/t

[manic expression]

3. No one really cares about the Constitution anymore

a cursory look at how the (bourgeois) federal government has evolved since ratification will show as much. Many parts of the Constitution are blatantly ignored.

[Rosemary2205]

4. Congress might stamp their foot and cry like 2 yr olds.

they won't DO anything of course, just make a lot of noise.

They are trying to convince us if Bush invades Iran without congressional approval then Congress will put the full smackdown on the White House -- impeachment? Yeah right. They won't do anything beside mutter incoherantly into the nearest microphone.

[Cerridwen]

5. This explanation might help

Constitutional crisis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


A constitutional crisis is a severe breakdown in the smooth operation of government. Generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government (e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments). Low-level disputes of this nature are commonplace in everyday government operation, and the point at which such a dispute becomes a constitutional crisis is difficult to define precisely. However, a good guideline is that a crisis occurs when one or more parties to the dispute refuses to recognize the right or power of another constitutional body to resolve or arbitrate the dispute.

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future. For instance, the United States constitution is silent on the question of whether states are allowed to secede from the Union; however, after the secession of several states was forcibly prevented in the American Civil War, it has become generally accepted that states cannot leave the Union.

A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government's sovereignty, as in a coup or revolution led by the military or civilian protesters.

A constitutional crisis can lead to government paralysis, collapse, or civil war.

--snip--

[Zensea]

7. good answer

unlike the others

[Cerridwen]

12. Thanks. I thought the OP asked a good question.

I didn't have a clear understanding of what the phrase "constitutional crisis" encompassed, either, just a sort of vague understanding.

It's nice to have clearer understanding of what we might be facing in the U.S. Scary, but necessary I think.

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. And I will make the argument that we already are in one

just that bush doing this sans advise and consent from the Congress will deepen it

Oh and the secession qusetion was LEGALLY answered in a USSC decision in 1872 when Texas actually went though the paperwork and ahem, was denied, once you are in, the decision basically reads, you are in.

[Cerridwen]

15. I agree with you - though I think it's brewing rather than at full

boil yet. The previous Congress didn't fight the Executive Branch's exertion of power. We still don't know for sure, how this Congress will respond. I think if this Congress does "fight back" - in significant numbers - we'll see it start to reach the boiling point.

I don't know what the wikipedia author meant about the issue of secession. Perhaps they were referring to there being no absolute which makes it illegal to secede from the Union. USSC decisions have been reversed in the past, amendments to the Constitution have been repealed, and legislation is written, removed, ignored and discarded. Given those examples, it is perhaps not an absolute that a state cannot secede. Again, not having written the entry myself, I'm not sure what the author's intent or implication is.

[zbdent]

6. What? Who's claming that Bush is going to get a BJ?

I mean, wasn't that the 98-99 definition of a constitutional crisis?

[Golden Raisin]

8. I believe declaration of wars reside with

the Legislative branch, per our Constitution. So if Bush unilaterally bombed/nuked Iran without so much as even a consultation of Congress, let alone Congress voting to declare war, that could be a Constitutional Crisis. But since Bush doesn't give a shit about the Constitution anyway (and apparently neither does Congress, or they would have fought back and tried to impeach him) the whole issue is kind of moot. Bush will continue with his "signing statements" and do exactly what he wants, cherry-picking which laws and parts of laws he will or will not deign to obey/enforce. We are fucked. The Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Iran not Iraq.

The crisis would be the use of the IWR by the Bush administration as carte blanche pre-approval to go to war anywhere with anyone. The constitution (or at least the bits not yet shredded) puts the authority to take the nation to war solely with Congress. Unfortunately Congress has mostly ceded that authority to the executive branch over the last 60 years. The attempt to reclaim that authority through the War Powers Resolution has yet to be tested in court. The claim by the Bush administration that it has authority to act anywhere against anyone is dubious at best, but will the Bush friendly supreme court agree with that? Will a deadlocked senate even act to stop the administration?

The administrations claims seem to be reflected in these paragraphs of the IWR:

"Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:"

which generalize the situation to the completely ambiguous warnterra and an assertion of territorial rights to the persian gulf (i.e. oil)
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Authorization_for_Use_of_Military_Force_Against_Iraq_Resolution_of_2002

But there will be no crisis as our leadership has no courage and will not fight.

[TahitiNut]

11. I think it's important to understand the meaning of the word 'crisis.'

In this case, I think it's probably used appropriately by most.

A crisis (plural: crises) is a turning point or decisive moment in events. Typically, it is the moment from which an illness may go on to death or recovery. More loosely, it is a term meaning 'a testing time' or 'emergency event'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crisis

Thus, it's expected to be a 'turning point' (or "watershed moment") where forces in conflict arrive at a point where one or the other prevails. When the Executive Branch acts in a manner beyond the boundaries of its Constitutional boundaries, at least in the view of the Legislative Branch, then they can take their conflict to the Judicial Branch for resolution or - as they more often do - the Legislative Branch exercises other powers to "twist the arm" of the Executive. I think most of us would agree that the politicization of the Supreme Court is such that we can't have complete confidence in the fairness of their ruling. Clearly, that's the apparent view of at least some legislators.

[onenote]

14. by constitutional crisis they mean constitutional "conflict"

Most commentators that express concern that if the President were to attack Iran (not Iraq) without obtaining separate authorization from Congress, there would be a "constitutional crisis" in the sense that the roles specified in the constition for the President as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive and of the legislature as the body charged with declaring and authorizing funding for military action would come into conflict. In theory the Supreme COurt would be the body, in our constitutional system of checks and balances, to resolve this conflict, but the SCOTUS has historically tried to stay out of such matters.