Talk:Constitutional crisis

message: The Article contained a section claiming a constitutional crisis in Germany because of a refusal of the German government to implement a decision of the German supreme court to introduce homosexual marriage. As there was no source supporting this claim and there never was a constitutional crisis, I removed the section.
For clarification, what actually happened was that the German supreme court ruled that a clause in the law on inheritance tax, which discriminated against partners in a civil union in comparison to heterosexual married partners, was unconstitutional. The German government accepted the decision but also declared, that it does not think that this decision also applies to the laws on income tax. However, this is nowhere near a a constitutional crisis as defined in the article, as nobody doubts the competence of the supreme court to pass another ruling clarifying the situation if requested to do so. 85.180.12.95 (talk) 12:13, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone keeps reinserting this fraudulent claim, and I will continue to remove it on sight. 98.207.57.82 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: See Coloured vote constitutional crisis----Bancki (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Africa Coloured vote constitutional crisis 1951-1957 

message: The article defines a constitutional crises as "a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty".  From the descriptions offered here (and from my own historical knowledge), it seems to me that neither the Watergate scandal nor the Jones/Lewinsky scandal met this criteria:
*Nixon argued that executive priviledge meant that he didn't have to turn over the Watergate tapes; his administration took this case through the court system, and when the Supreme Court ruled against him and damaging contents of the tapes came out, he quit.
*Clinton argued that he didn't have to testify in the Jones case, and his administration argued this case through the court system; when the Supreme Court ruled against him, he agreed to testify.  Kenneth Star then presented testimony from others that showed that Clinton's testimony had been untruthful.  Clinton argued that his false testimony did not meet the test of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as outlined in the Constitution as grounds for removing a President from office.  He was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate.
In both cases, the conflicts were entirely resolved within the mechanisms of the US Constitution and constitutional law.  It would have been a constitutional crisis if, say, Nixon had refused to hand over the tapes even after the Supreme Court ruled that he had to, or if Clinton had refused to testify in the Jones case even after the Supreme Court ruled that he had to, or if Clinton had refused to relinquish power after being convicted by the Senate, or if the House leaders had demanded that Clinton step down despite his acquital by the Senate.  Though there was obviously conflict among the various factions within the government, the crises were resolved because all the actors agreed to abide by the constitutionally mandated arbiter of the disputes (the Supreme Court for both Nixon and Clinton, and the Senate sitting as an impeachment court for Clinton).
I'm not as familiar with the Argentine case, but my understanding is that it was a similar situation: a crisis certainly, but handled by the mechanims of the Argentine constitution. When each of these ephemeral presidents quit, there was never any doubt as to who was next in the legitimate line of succession.  I'd like to remove these cases unless anyone objects. --Jfruh 01:05, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nixon and Clinton should definitely not be here. I don't know much about the Argentinian case. It at least sounds like a sort of constitutional malfunction. Iota 16:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why Watergate qualifies as a constitutional crisis (and I will now quote from somebody who has said it better than I am)
By the end of the July, both the Senate committee and the special prosecutors were salivating over the tapes. Nixon refused to turn the tapes over willingly, so both the committee and Cox issued subpoenas. This set the stage for an all-out battle between the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, the likes of which had never been seen before or since.
The Constitutional Crisis
Behind the scenes, top Nixon officials were in a state of panic. The president issued a statement making it painfully clear that he would not acknowledge the legitimacy of any court order that he turn over the documents, which meant the case was headed for the Supreme Court and a genuine constitutional crisis.
Even more unclear was the question of whether Nixon would allow compliance with a Supreme Court order. The president's aides were forced to consider lurid worst-case scenarios, such as an armed squad of U.S. Marshals arriving at the White House to collect the tapes on orders from the Supreme Court, only to be barred at the gate by armed U.S. soldiers taking orders from the commander-in-chief.  Kade 00:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Entirely hypothetical. It would indeed have been a constitutional crisis if any of that had happened.  But it didn't.  SCOTUS ordered the tapes turned over, and they were in fact turned over. --Jfruh (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was the Cuban Missile CRISIS "hypothetical" because no nuclear missiles were exchanged?  Re-added, with a citation of  Defense Secretary Schlesinger investigating how quickly he could bring the 82nd Airborne to Washington D.C. if Nixon tried to turn the marines against the authority of the United States Government.  Please stop treating this article like it was your baby. Kade 07:13, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton, Nixon: Are these really constitutional crises? 

message: Why is the disputed U.S. presidential election of 2000 listed here?  There were disagreements about election procedures, courts ruled, and their rulings were obeyed.  Which two parts of the government disagreed about which had sovereignty?  Where's the constitutional crisis? Josh Cherry 03:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hate to say it, but in theory it does. It actually intervened to overrule the Florida Supreme Court; yes, the ruling was terrible, but at least in theory SCOTUS does have jurisdiction. Batmanand | Talk 19:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I hate when courts rule that people should get their votes counted. Damn republican government!68.32.238.94 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the opposite of what happened: the Supreme Court ruled that people's votes shouldn't be counted. 75.76.213.106 (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  U.S. Presidential Election of 2000 

message: With the disputed 2000 election still fresh in people's minds I think that one of the biggest constitutional challenges the USA has ever faced.  the 1876 election should be added to the page, luckily the crisis was resolved by a Compromise but there was an issue of who has the right to monitor election results and the democrats planned to filibuster untill the compromise was worked out.
:: True but in 2000 the Constitution totally failed and the US Supreme Court used powers they did not have to intervene in a State Election. Magnum Serpentine 18:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that Marbury is wrong? That's breathtaking in its originalism! Way to go, Scalia! 68.32.238.94 00:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually in this case Marbury is pretty much irrelevant. The court was acting as the highest apellate court; the case was an appeal of a Florida Supreme Court decision. Therefore, it was not a case of judicial review. And incidentally, Scalia would almost certainly support Marbury. It was surely the original intent of those writing the constitution that the judicial branch should have power over the exective and legislature. If not, they have control over SCOTUS (eg by appointing judges) without any reciprocal control. That would have been against the principle of checks and balances at the heart of the Founding Fathers' ideals. Batmanand | Talk 11:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forget 2000, what about 1876 

message: I think that the definition of "contstitutional crisis" should be revised.  
First, I think the term is less clearly defined than the article would suggest.  The article needs to acknowledge that the term does not have some precise, universally accepted definition.  
Second, while I am still struggling with a good alternative definition, I think that the writer on the Clinton and Nixon controversies raises a good point that should be incorporated into the definition: a "constitutional crisis" implies a dispute about the validity of the existing constitutional order, and the absence of any agreement among the parties about the process for resolving the dispute.  A review of the U.S. Supreme Court's docket (not to mention the docket of most lower federal and state courts) will reveal that the courts are routinely called upon to resolve disputes between the so-called "political" branches of government about the distribution of power under the Constitution.  As long as the ultimate decision of the courts (i.e., after appeals are exhausted) is respected and followed by the interested parties (or at least a significant portion of them), I do not think that the dispute rises to the level of a "constitutional crisis"--regardless of how significant the stakes or acrimonious the dispute.  
Take, for example, a key line in Al Gore's 2000 concession speech,which he delivered after the Supreme Court issued its decision halting the recount.  I cannot remember the wording exactly, but it was something very close to "While I strongly disagree with the Court's decision, I accept it."  His acceptance of the Court's decision--and, more importantly, the widespread popular recognition of its finality--clearly illustrates why the 2000 election was not a "crisis."
:Ha, I was just thinking about doing this this morning.  I've done some serious expansion -- I'd love to hear what you all think.  I also zapped Watergate, again; see my earlier comments above for the reasons why.  There are a couple of other things on this list that I think are sort of borderline: Argentina (again, I describe my reasons in my earlier comments), Julius Caesar (isn't that more of a rebellion?), and the dispute over the People's Budget (again, it seems to me that that was all resolved within the confines of the British constitution, though the resolution was arrived at by changing that constitution). --Jfruh 14:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest Revision to Definition of "Constitutional Crisis 

message: Ok let us go through these one at a time. (All are obviously IMO)
1. Watergate. Not a constitutional crisis. Result was decided by mechanism of constitution (Supreme Court); Nixon did not disagree, and handed over tapes. Crisis would have been if Nixon had refused to hand over tapes. Incidentally, there was one time in early SCOTUS history when they ruled (I think) that it was unconstitutional to remove Native Americans from their homes and the President (Andrew Jackson, again I think) refused saying something like "[Chief Justice] John Marshall has made his ruling, now he can enforce it". Which of course SCOTUS did not. That might be classed as a "constitutional crisis", but seeing as it seems to have largely been lost in historical miscellany I do not think it counts
2. Election 2000. I think the arguments have already been covered. Not a crisis.
3. Argentina. What little I know about the situation suggests to me that it was more a case of too many greedy men and too few positions of power. A crisis of politics, but not of the constitution (evn though they all broke the constitution, they were all (or the last at least was) removed by mechanisms specified in it)
4. Caesar crossing the Rubicon. Surely the very definition of a constitutional crisis. He was consul for that year, meaning he had half the power, but wanted more. He violated the Roman constutional convention of not entering Rome with troops, used force (an extra-judicial and extra-constitutional method) to justify his action, and the crisis was only ended when the constitution itself was changed in 31, 27 and 23BCE to chnage the Republic into an Empire.
5. The People's Budget. Again, definitely a crisis of constitutional kind. Lloyd-George ahd the support of the Commons, but not of the Lords. The two sides disagreed over who had sovereignty; or rather whose sovereignty best represented the will of the people. Lloyd-George won, but only by passing the Parliament Act, which fundamentally changed the balance of power within the UK constitutional framework. It is the equivalent of the House forcing the Senate to agree never to do more than delay a House piece of legislation!
My 2 cents. Batmanand 12:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review 

message: Does either really constitute a constitutional crisis? It's not clear that SCOTUS will not render a decision that is widely accepted. Yaush (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cannabis, Obamacare state laws 

message: I had removed the line pertaining to gonzales v. Raich and really wasn't expecting a revert. I don't understand how anyone can interpret this as a constitutional crisis. Now I support medical marijuana and decriminalization, and might not seeing it turn into some sort of actual constitutional crisis since I think a positive result would occur. Gonzales v Raich merely affirmed the scope of the Federal Governments authority over the commerce clause while attempting to further define the Tenth Amendment/States Right's. 
The ruling in favor merely upheld the Fed's power to enforce the Controlled Substance Act. Is the growing of marijuana in your own home for personal use involving any commerce? No. Does that matter? No. The only thing that matters is the opinion and not the dissent of the Court. Had Justice Kennedy broke from the Liberal Bloc of the court then we might actually see a constitutional crisis of sorts that could have potentially invalidated the fed's power to enforce the Controlled Substance Act.
Is this on par with trying to answer whether states can succeed from the Union or line of secession problems? I wouldn't argue not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunafizzle (talk • contribs) 20:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gonzales v Raich - Not a constitutional crisis 

message: ...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.242.37 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honduras is not in North America 

message: A crisis arises from a situation that a constitution cannot resolve.  The Canadian Parliamentary Dispute of 2008 was not, therefore, a constitutional crisis because the dispute was over the interpretation of the constitution, rather than the constitution being unable to handle the situation.  
For anyone unfamiliar with it, the opposition parties formed an accord where two would form a parliamentary coalition of insufficient size to hold a majority of the seats in the House, but had entered into an agreement with a third opposition party who would support the coalition government on matters of confidence.  They rested their arguments on precedent from 1985, where a similar action took place in a provincial legislature.  However, in that situation, the agreement was between only two parties and there was no parliamentary coalition involved.
The constitutional rules were clear in this case:  If the government of Canada loses the confidence of the house, then the Prime Minister must advise the Governor-General, who then can ask another person to try to form a government, or call an election.  Before a vote of confidence took place, the Prime Minister asked the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament, and she agreed, preventing a fall of a government from happening prior to a change of leadership of the main opposition party (whose leader had already announced his resignation prior to the development of the dispute) .  The coalition subsequently fell apart, which allowed the government to survive.
Scbritton (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Parliamentary Dispute (2008) 

message: I would remove the Pinochet coup d'état in Chile 1973 - a coup is much more than a crisis.--Bancki (talk) 13:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coup is not just a crisis 

message: I would add the Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 as a constitutional crisis, a standoff between the parliamentary majority (government) and the constitutional court.--Bancki (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015 

message: Courtyard Crisis (Sweden, 1914)
New South Wales constitutional crisis, 1932 (Australia)
Fatti di Rovereta (San Marino, 1957)
2012 Romanian constitutional crisis
----Bancki (talk) 09:18, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  suggested additions 

message: Every constitutional change is not a constitutional crisis. The EU has not disputed the UK's option to withdraw, nor has the UK attempted to withdraw outside of the EU's framework. It does not matter that Tom, Dick and Harry have resigned, as long as there are recognized processes to replace them. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope. There is widespread public agreement in multiple reliable sources that the aftermath of the EUref was and is a constitutional crisis. Please stop removing it. Softlavender (talk) 05:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: If only you would cite them. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Next to none of the CC's in this entire article are cited, and no one has tagged the item as needing citation. Softlavender (talk) 05:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think there's a good case for calling it a constitutional crisis. It threatens the very unity of the state. Scotland may declare independence to remain in the EU and Northern Island may move to re-unite with Eire.Gazzster (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about constitutional crises, not may-become constitutional crises. Softlavender says there are sources, so I will assume that citing them is not a problem.  24.7.14.87 (talk) 21:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I'd disagree with Gazzster's characterization of that as a constitutional crisis.  It may touch on "constitutional" issues, and some politicians and media who are nervous about the outcome may use exaggerated terms like "crisis", but that doesn't make it a "constitutional crisis".  The unity of the United Kingdom is not constitutionally insurmountable, and it breaking up is not a constitutional crisis, unless there is no constitutional path.  The Scottish independence referendum, 2014 wasn't a constitutional crisis: Parliament can grant independence at will, and has done so with dozens of British possessions over the years.  It happened before, and can happen again.  Leaving the European Union is also not an apparent constitutional crisis: For the EU, Article 50 exists precisely to address the question, and even has a 2-year escape clause to make sure there's not a deadlock; and for the UK, Parliament is sovereign and can make and break treaties at will.  There's nothing about Brexit that has triggered "the sort of thing that isn't done" under UK constitutional conventions. --Closeapple (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

text:  Surely you know that, as WP:PROVEIT explains, it is the duty of the person adding the claims to provide reliable sources for each claim, and that the subject belongs in the article; it is not the duty of the person removing it to defend it or to go look for someone else's "multiple reliable sources" out there somewhere.  The rest of the article being an unsourced heap isn't permission to pile more on.  I am removing the (repeatedly) unsourced paragraph about Brexit.  There is no reliable source provided that Brexit is a present constitutional crisis (or even that a constitutional crisis is logically inevitable), and no source for the details either.  I think some people may be confused about what a "constitutional crisis" is: It's not just any big political issue in which the constitution happens to be a factor.  For something to be a constitutional crisis, it usually has to be an actual legal crisis that causes a deadlock because the existing constitutional system doesn't even have a clear path to resolve the problem. --Closeapple (talk) 06:53, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't add claims. I've reverted the unexplained removal of relevant and important text. Next to none of the constitutional crises in this entire article are cited, and no one has ever tagged the UK EU referendum entry as needing citation. I'm not sure why you are removing it wholesale without placing a tag on it beforehand and allowing editors to cite it before wholesale removing it. Softlavender (talk) 08:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

text: I also don't see a constitutional crisis in the Brexit (yet), rather a political crisis. Ziko (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Brexit

message: The current lead paragraph reads as follows:
:In political science, a  constitutional crisis is a crisis of government administration, which the political constitution (or other basic principle of operation) of a legal system appears unable to resolve. The crisis usually interferes with the orderly operation of government. In general, a constitutional crisis results when factions within a government ideologically disagree about the extent to which each faction holds sovereignty to legally exercise administrative power.  Specifically, a constitutional crisis results from internal conflict among the branches of government (executive, legislative, judiciary) or, in a federal system, between the state and federal levels of government.
To me this paragraph, the lead sentence in particular, provide a very blurry definition. The last sentence provides a very U.S.-specific declaration, one that I would argue is overly specific even if applied just to the U.S. And, of course, saying "a constitutional crisis is a crisis ..." is a circular definition by itself.
If I can propose an alternative:
:In political science, a  constitutional crisis is problem or conflict in the function of a government that the political constitution or other fundamental governing law is perceived to be unable to resolve. Such a crisis may arise from a variety of possible causes. For example, the constitution may fail to provide a clear answer for a specific situation; the constitution may be clear but it may be politically infeasible to follow it; the government institutions themselves may falter or fail to live up to what the law prescribes them to be; or officials in the government may justify avoiding dealing with a serious problem based on overly narrow interpretations of the law. Specific examples include the Coloured vote constitutional crisis in the 1950s and the secession of the southern U.S. states in 1860 and 1861. Constitutional crises may arise from conflicts between different branches of government, conflicts between central and local governments, or simply conflicts among various factions within society.
Thoughts?
-- MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change to lead 

message: Editor opinions as to what is, or could be, or could become a constitutional crisis have no place in this article. Opinions of professional press opinionators aren't much better. What's good is published legal scholarship that identifies an event as a CC and discusses it at length as such. 67.180.143.210 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: US border wall emergency

message: The NYT is calling it (US §), it obviously is, and there are doubtless other sources, i.e. Trump's rejection of the begun impeachment process. 98.4.103.219 (talk) 20:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, politics are contentious and urgency sells the news. The immediate discussion of whether there might be a crisis is a poor source from which to verify that there was a crisis. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

text: We probably need better sources than contemporary news media.  For what it's worth, it seems to me that the 2020 Trump/Ukraine impeachment thing may have come as close to U.S. constitutional crisis as Nixon, but it seems that neither were truly constitutional crises, since neither one went beyond the ability of the U.S. Constitution to handle.  Both U.S. presidencies had obstruction at a major factor.  But if I remember, Nixon didn't actually direct the executive branch to refuse to testify before Congress.  On the other hand, Nixon did invoke executive privilege to block the tapes, and it went all the way to the Supreme Court in United States v. Nixon; Trump's obstruction didn't get to court only because the U.S. House thought it would take too much time to initiate the suit.  But there was still recourse available through the judicial branch; neither got to a point where the executive branch outright refused to obey final court rulings.  Contrast this with Worcester v. Georgia#Effects, which seems like it would be closer to a U.S. constitutional crisis if it happened today, but the Supreme Court in that case made seemed to have made a practical decision to avoid pushing into constitutional crisis. --Closeapple (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It is appropriate to include Watergate because legal scholars have continued to discuss it as a constitutional crisis long after the dust has settled — not just a particular court case, but the broad question of what the president can do under the label of national security. Likewise for the steel strike, even though today the public hardly remembers it, where the constitutional question was very similar. Several sources do refer to Worcester as a constitutional crisis, although I would have to look further to find a source that discusses it at length as one. 73.71.251.64 (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

text: This Wikipedia article states in the second paragraph that 'Constitutional crises may arise from conflicts between different branches of government, conflicts between central and local governments, or simply conflicts among various factions within society. In the course of government, the crisis results when one or more of the parties to a political dispute willfully chooses to violate a law of the constitution; or to flout an unwritten constitutional convention; or to dispute the correct, legal interpretation of the violated constitutional law or of the flouted political custom. Already, Donald Trump has flouted a number of unwritten constitutional conventions in this election, such as the refusal to concede when counted ballots and the electoral college indicate that he has lost to Joe Biden. Although this has not yet resulted in a constitutional crisis yet, with the Republican Party largely backing up Donald Trump's actions, it seems very likely to develop into one in the near future. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 05:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current 

message: I've removed the storming of the U.S. Capitol from the list because none of the cited sources even mention the phrase "constitutional crisis". Per WP:NOR, Wikipedia follows the lead of reliable sources, and if no reliable sources refer to this event as a constitutional crisis, then neither can we. Mz7 (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Storming of the US Capitol