I thought the Constitutional crisis would come when the Administration refused to honor a SCOTUS decision. But t's here now. Remember, the House's power to impeach is *more* explicitly laid out in the Constitution than SCOTUS's role as final arbiter.
nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opi…
nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opi…
As I've said many times, here and to audiences (tho the idea is not original to me) the Con does not enforce itself. It has meaning only insofar as powerful people choose to subject themselves to it. It has survived this long because, until this week, they always have.
I am only a Fake Constitutional Scholar, so, as always, I will defer to real ones. But to my knowledge, with the possible exception of Andrew Jackson's refusal to honor a SCOTUS decision, nothing like this has ever happened before in our history.
There really is only one solution. Which is: enough other powerful people act to defend the Constitution from this one attack. But to defend the Constitution -- when that defense is needed -- means to put aside your own immediate interest.
The reason for this is simple: Constitutional government, on the individual level, means accepting a political loss. You say -- as every single serious American politician has to date -- "The people have spoken, and I accept their verdict."
That verdict may be on your own election. Or it may be on electing a Congress controlled by the other party. But the Constitution has lasted because enough people, when the time came, have said those words, and meant them.
Another, more pungent description of the crisis we are now in: washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/…
