To qualify, the crisis should be listed here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_crisis
If Wikipedia becomes unreliable, defunct, or does not list a crisis but there's a broad consensus that there has been one, then I'm open to resolving according to a different source.
Update 2025-02-10 (PST) (AI summary of creator comment): Broad Consensus Clarification
If Wikipedia lists a constitutional crisis but there is a broad consensus that it has not occurred, the resolution may be based on a different, less biased source.
A broad consensus requires more than strong disagreement (for example, stark differences between left and right perspectives); in such a case, Wikipedia remains the guiding source.
Ongoing events mentioned on Wikipedia do not yet qualify as a full-fledged constitutional crisis.
1,000@MatthewYglesias argued in 2015 that a constitutional crisis was coming in the next few decades: https://www.vox.com/2015/3/2/8120063/american-democracy-doomed
and if you think economist is not far left, just look at the pictures, all in red
@skibidist Haha. I remember referencing the economist in a left wing discussion and being told it's obviously a far right source, just look at the name.
Sec. 7. Rules of Conduct Guiding Federal Employees’ Interpretation of the Law. The President and the Attorney General, subject to the President’s supervision and control, shall provide authoritative interpretations of law for the executive branch. The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties. No employee of the executive branch acting in their official capacity may advance an interpretation of the law as the position of the United States that contravenes the President or the Attorney General’s opinion on a matter of law, including but not limited to the issuance of regulations, guidance, and positions advanced in litigation, unless authorized to do so by the President or in writing by the Attorney General.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/
While this isn't explicitly instructing federal employees to ignore court orders, it does seem a step towards that. In democracies, courts interpret the law, not the President.
@Shai I don't know. People call it 4d chess when I suggest it, but it is a free way to control the media cycle. It also works liberals into a frenzy that absolutely does alienate them from the median voter.
@skibidist or a defensive stance in the case where they would have already broken the law maybe. But so far not sure there's any clear evidence of that?
@MalachiteEagle I genuinely think it is just to generate these headlines
It would have been completely ineffective and counterproductive as a statement of intent and even more so as an attempt at defence.
Also, why violate liberal court orders when you can have justice Thomas handle them?
Not even Democrat senators think there is a constitutional crisis..
Fetterman says there 'isn't a constitutional crisis' with the Trump administration
@skibidist It's so embarrassing for the United States that this is even a discussion.
Israel had months of mass protests due to a far-right government rapidly pushing judicial reforms that threatened do disturb the balance of power between the governmental branches. And even here the left-leaning media was responsible enough to correctly report that a constitutional crisis might happen if things play out a certain way.
This hystericization of everything ('project 2025'/'trans genocide'/'end of democracy'/'everything is fascism') by what should be respectable newspapers needs to stop.
A wise comment from the Wikipedia article's discussion page:
There is a long history of events being added to this article based on speculations (against WP:CRYSTAL) and the political passions of a moment, and that is why it is preferred that entries be sourced to publications that discuss an episode after the fact and at length not as a "potential crisis" or "looming crisis" etc. but an actual crisis. The NYT article, viewed by that standard, has one scholar (Chemerinsky) clearly saying that a CC is underway, and others whom the reporter attributes but do not directly quote on the point, and none of them quoted at length. This is a familiar pattern, and events will unfold as they do regardless of what this article says, and there is no urgency to declare a CC in the face of ongoing debate.
I urge everyone to calm down and wait to see how the events develop.
