Are we in a Constitutional Crisis?

[thefloyd]

Jesus Christ what is wrong with our fucking country? Americans are just walking around
and have no freakin clue what the hell is going on!!!!

[ClintonTyree]

1. 8 years ago we were............

because of a BJ.......now, :shrug: Our civil liberties are disappearing faster than a buffet in front of Candy Crowley but it's SOOOO technical and boring! It makes Americans' brains hurt! Never fear, I hear there's a missing blond white woman missing, that should keep them entertained for days.

[leftchick]

3. omg...

a buffett in front of candy crowley???

:rofl:

thanks, I needed that!

:rofl:

[BOHICA06]

2. No ....

...the crisis is purely political. Who has the power, who wants the power, and how will they share the power.

The Dems have been pushed out of power and have lost share of power in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Could go back to 1994 or 1980 for the start of the slip. It's not easy regaining lost ground when the other side now sets the rules, but it can be done. For the Repubs, it was a 40 year process.

[KitchenWitch]

4. I think we could go back to the mid 1970s for the start of the slip

Just MHO.

[Wilms]

5. Agreed. Then were off to the 1800's. n/t

[BOHICA06]

6. So your start is the '73 gas crisis ....

followed by the 78 hostage crisis with the Panama Canal thrown in for good measure. I can see that.

[KitchenWitch]

7. Yes

Carter's presidency was doomed from the start.

[mark11727]

14. When NIXON left office...

...the RW has been bitter and thirsting for revenge ever since.

[PATRICK]

24. And the Dems back then

after Watergate, let the opportunity slip with the same practiced trepidation mixed with purity and mixed with old GOP allure, as they continue to exhibit today. The RW roused the lower classes even if they had to deal with nutjobs. The Dems whined they couldn't raise money from ordinary folk- and apparently didn't try or know how to deal with sane people. They acted like post FDR Dems, splitting in cautious retreat and counting that as wisdom. Nixon's deal, slinking off, left evil unanswered. His cronies even came out of prison onto talk shows and book deals while others are ruling over fascism today.

Yet this struggle has been going on since the inception of the nation. Money, slavery, rights, the development of a new aristocracy versus the middle class. Industrialization just made the stage new and larger. Whatever Washington and the others warned against slowly comes to pass and does not go away. So taking a broad view means we need another revolution and constitution and not go it alone in the world, but what will happen will be messier by fits and starts in a volatile globe on that should be on life supports.

[cali]

9. Disagree

Al Gore made the case for why we are in a constitutional crisis. It's simple: The prez circumvented an unambiguous law. It's about process, process, process.

[BOHICA06]

12. Not Yet ....

if the USSC says ....."Woah!" and * then ignores it, you have full blown CC. Right how, the WH is not in conflict with the Congress, * is only in conflict with a minority of the Congress. Different than '74 or '97/'98

[OneBlueSky]

18. emphatically disagree . . .

if this were merely about "who has the power, who wants the power, and how they will share the power," it might be just a political crisis . . . but it's not . . .

it's also about how the power is obtained and retained . . . and when election fraud, staged terrorist attacks, and billions of dollars from corporations that the government is supposed to regulate on behalf of the people are the determining factors in how those in power get there and stay there, the crisis is indeed constitutional . . . the most critical constitutional crisis in our nation's history, in fact . . .

[H2O Man]

8. No, not yet.

This is a Constitutional conflict, but not a crisis yet. It is a conflict that goes back to the Jefferson administration, and which has reared its head in almost every administration since the Civil War. It only becomes a Constitutional Crisis if one of the three branches keeps one or both of the others from being able to function properly, and there is a "show down."

Conflicts such as this can indeed turn into a crisis, but the Senate would need to have more of a spine than we have seen in the past five years. There is little evidence that the House or Senate are willing to do their Constitutionally mandated job requirements .... but not because the executive branch is preventing them, but rather because they not willing to step up to the plate.

The balony with Clinton was a good example of an actual Constitutional crisis -- it was an abuse of power on the part of the House and Senate, in an attempt to keep the president from functioning properly.

[nickinSTL]

10. it's VERY close...

The signing statements are coming VERY close to rendering Congress impotent.

And the Republican Senators don't seem to get that.

Every time I've sent an email to them about Alito, I've hammered that point home, that Alito will be responsible for making Congress superfluous by allowing the President unlimited authority.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

11. Oh I'm sure the Repub senators "get it". They're just okay with a king.

As long as it's "their" king.

[H2O Man]

13. You are definitely right.

The willingness of Congress to cooperate in this is pathetic. There is a very real chance that the form of government that the Constitution defines is being willingly surrendered.

[greekspeak]

15. Ummmm...do we still have a constitution?

?

[libertad]

16. Have you been in a cryogenic freezer for a while or what?

We've been in a constitutional crisis for quite a while now!

[thefloyd]

17. No !

I am talking about average Americans. Just walking around Saint Louis . n and NO ONE is talking about anything. People are just not fucking paying attention!!!!! Ah well there I go again....Elitism.

[Ikonoklast]

19. Because they are fat, dumb and happy in their ignorance

All this talk, talk, talk on the picture box makes their brains hurt. It reminds them of the boring history class that they slept through, and they change the channel to happy talk to make it go away.


They don't vote. That is why we have a minority government.

[ThomWV]

20. Yes We Are

We are because the power of the Presidency now goes unchecked.

The Constitution provides for checks on the power of the Presidency but they are not working. Beyond that the President of the United States is violating the law knowingly and refuses to stop doing so even in the face of considerable legal opinion naming his act as illegal.

If that does not rise to the level of Constitutional crisis than what on earth does?

[Igel]

21. Not yet.

The signing statements are just stating how the executive branch understands the law when it's signed. Of probably equal importance to the stuff entered into the Congressional record and never included in floor debate; and of lesser than what's said during debate by the winning contingent. The legislative must decide how a law's going to be interpreted in order to vote on it; the executive must decide how to interpret it in order to implement it. Saying the executive must not interpret a law is a bit of utmost silliness, and is different from saying that the executive's interpretation is ultimately the deciding factor in how a law is to be implemented and executed.

The judicial has final say, looking first to the text of the law, then to the interpretations of the other two branches. This is a red herring, and not even one that's been properly pickled.

The real potential for crisis is the warrantless wiretapping. If the executive takes the route that the Constitution grants him authority, then the clear implication (in their view) is that the legislative cannot override that authority, whatever they may believe. The question is, if the Constitution grants the authority, can the legislative branch interfere, establish oversight, and regulate or restrict it? Regardless, if the legislative insists on imposing their interpretation by means of impeachment, when it's unclear that the judicial has had a sufficient chance to weigh in, it means the legislative is infringing on the judicial branch's authority--whether or not the legislative's interpretation is ultimately supported. The Constitution allows for this kind of game: the grounds for impeachment are vague.

We might wind up in a bit of a Constitutional crisis. The US has a knack for avoiding really big ones, though. We have "crisislings".

[bigbrother05]

22. It's only a crisis if the Constitution is still operative

Stopping Scalito could be the last gas station before entering the NeoCon desert. Starting with the SCOTUS ruling in 2000, moving through the "quaint" Geneva Conventions brouhaha and GITMO/Abu Graib, the NSA snooping, and into the Roberts/Scalito nominations, it has snowballed. It has become clear that the "drown it in the bathtub" movement has not been limited to the Legislative branch.

They have put a DNR notice on the US Government. It was clear that Terri Schivo was beyond help, but we better show some signs of life soon because they are just waiting for the family to gather before they pull the plug.

[leftofthedial]

23. as for the constitutional crisis--yes. ever since Dec 12, 2000

as for clueless Murkans--there is nothing new under the sun