constitutional crisis ?

[cleaver]

is this (us) government currently in a constitutional crisis?

if so, what does this actually mean - and portend - in contemporary context?

if not, what avenue would keep such a crisis at bay?

if we can keep the rhetoric somewhat civil (if only as an exercise?)
perhaps we can actually learn a bit more than the slogans of the moment?

 

[Rightguide]

There is no constitutional crisis. Jerry "The Penguin' Nadler crapping his pants and misstating the law doesn't amount to a crisis except the leadership education crisis that exists in the House right now.

 

[cleaver]

thank you, (not)vette.
please take a moment to re-read the codicil above and...
try again.

there is a real issue on the table,
not a threat to right-guide-eousness.

 

[Kantarii]

I don’t see all this hoopla as a Constitutional Crisis. It’s political bullshit where some people in our government are making mountains out of molehills, something they want to carry on through to the election in 2020 with the hopes it’ll undo the 2016 election.

Honestly, I don’t see it playing out well for the Democrats in the long run.
Kant

 

[Matthew Craig]

Shut up cleaver, you midget. Why aren't you looking up summer dresses right now instead of attempting politics!

 

[cleaver]

you are a joy matthew. good stuff.

k, i think you gloss over what is happening.
of course it is politics, but....
in exercising politics, the institutional branches of government are either collided or on track to be...

we are talking about the institutions,
more than the personalities here.

and while we cannot dismiss the personalities
except through process proscribed through those institutions,
those institutions are certainly imperiled
by the positions being marked by the current stewards.

or, is everything just peachy?

 

[jaF0]

Yoda seems to be having a keyboard crisis.

Again.

 

[spacekowboy]

There is no constitutional crisis. Jerry "The Penguin' Nadler crapping his pants and misstating the law doesn't amount to a crisis except the leadership education crisis that exists in the House right now.

Captain Crapfetish strikes again.

But yeah. Tell us again how you aren't vette. Even your boys in the bro patrol know.

 

[BotanyBoy]

is this (us) government currently in a constitutional crisis?

I don't see how.

Is a branch of government acting outside it's authority unchecked??

k, i think you gloss over what is happening.
of course it is politics, but....
in exercising politics, the institutional branches of government are either collided or on track to be...

we are talking about the institutions,
more than the personalities here.

and while we cannot dismiss the personalities
except through process proscribed through those institutions,
those institutions are certainly imperiled
by the positions being marked by the current stewards.

or, is everything just peachy?

How are those institutions imperiled?

They are designed to collide, there are very clear rules on how each institution gets to gut check the other...it's called checks and balances. As long as those rules set forth in the Constitution are followed, I don't see a Constitutional crisis.

Everything is peachy as far as government function/structure goes.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

Checks and balances. It still works.

 

[bellisarius]

There is no constitutional crisis. Jerry "The Penguin' Nadler crapping his pants and misstating the law doesn't amount to a crisis except the leadership education crisis that exists in the House right now.

Yes there is and Nadler is creating it.

Let's start with he has held Barr in contempt for NOT violating a felony law passed by congress itself. This is a constitutional issue in that congress has effectively 'entrapped' Barr.

Congress is co-equal to the administrative branch, not superior.

Trump has, within the rights of any sitting president, asserted his right to executive privilege. Any dispute on that going forward is going to have to be resolved by the courts. And this is a constitutional issue in that congress is attempting to assert superiority over the executive branch.

Quite frankly I think that congress, at least the democrats, have collectively gone insane. I can only suspect that their desperation to obtain the grand jury testimony is so they can maybe get a hint of the direction Barr and Wray are going with the investigation of the previous administration in order to make an attempt to blunt the blows that are surely coming.

 

[Rightguide]

thank you, (not)vette.
please take a moment to re-read the codicil above and...
try again.

there is a real issue on the table,
not a threat to right-guide-eousness.

You certainly haven't defined it...probably because it doesn't exist.

 

[Rightguide]

Yes there is and Nadler is creating it.

Let's start with he has held Barr in contempt for NOT violating a felony law passed by congress itself. This is a constitutional issue in that congress has effectively 'entrapped' Barr.

Congress is co-equal to the administrative branch, not superior.

Trump has, within the rights of any sitting president, asserted his right to executive privilege. Any dispute on that going forward is going to have to be resolved by the courts. And this is a constitutional issue in that congress is attempting to assert superiority over the executive branch.

Quite frankly I think that congress, at least the democrats, have collectively gone insane. I can only suspect that their desperation to obtain the grand jury testimony is so they can maybe get a hint of the direction Barr and Wray are going with the investigation of the previous administration in order to make an attempt to blunt the blows that are surely coming.

Not really. It's simple overreach to an unconscionable degree but no vote on the floor as been taken yet.

The only Constitutional crisis I see is the ongoing deep State and FBI cover-up of the coup they engaged in to frame a duly elected President.

I think some Republicans have gone nuts too, like the Chairman of the senate Intel Committee for one.

 

[zipman]

is this (us) government currently in a constitutional crisis?

if so, what does this actually mean - and portend - in contemporary context?

if not, what avenue would keep such a crisis at bay?

if we can keep the rhetoric somewhat civil (if only as an exercise?)
perhaps we can actually learn a bit more than the slogans of the moment?

Yes it is a constitutional crisis.

It means that this will head to the courts. The challenge in a current context is that normally congress asserts itself in a more bipartisan way when it comes to conflicts with the Executive Branch but what we are seeing is congressional republicans putting party ahead of constitutional role.

The White House has been pushing the power of the President and this is the Congress pushing back to conduct their role of oversight.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

Yes it is a constitutional crisis.

It means that this will head to the courts. The challenge in a current context is that normally congress asserts itself in a more bipartisan way when it comes to conflicts with the Executive Branch but what we are seeing is congressional republicans putting party ahead of constitutional role.

The White House has been pushing the power of the President and this is the Congress pushing back to conduct their role of oversight.

That's by design. It's how the system is supposed to work. Ergo, not a crisis.

 

[BotanyBoy]

That's by design. It's how the system is supposed to work. Ergo, not a crisis.

Zippy failed US government in his last year of school....made it all the way to 8th grade.

 

[Ann_Tagonist]

Zippy failed US government in his last year of school....made it all the way to 8th grade.

Time for remedial obedience school. Play dead.

 

[bellisarius]

Not really. It's simple overreach to an unconscionable degree but no vote on the floor as been taken yet.

The only Constitutional crisis I see is the ongoing deep State and FBI cover-up of the coup they engaged in to frame a duly elected President.

I think some Republicans have gone nuts too, like the Chairman of the senate Intel Committee for one.

I have no doubt that it will go to the floor and be passed. Barr will most likely respond with a law suit of his own re. violation of 5th amendment rights.

 

[Kantarii]

Checks and balances. It still works.

I made that case earlier on another thread. Kant
Some people slept through that class in high school.

 

[cleaver]

Yes there is and Nadler is creating it.

Let's start with he has held Barr in contempt for NOT violating a felony law passed by congress itself. This is a constitutional issue in that congress has effectively 'entrapped' Barr.

Congress is co-equal to the administrative branch, not superior.

Trump has, within the rights of any sitting president, asserted his right to executive privilege. Any dispute on that going forward is going to have to be resolved by the courts. And this is a constitutional issue in that congress is attempting to assert superiority over the executive branch.

Quite frankly I think that congress, at least the democrats, have collectively gone insane. I can only suspect that their desperation to obtain the grand jury testimony is so they can maybe get a hint of the direction Barr and Wray are going with the investigation of the previous administration in order to make an attempt to blunt the blows that are surely coming.

i tend to agree with you
in that congress and the executive branch
have come to a point at which
the third branch will have to... perhaps craft law to adjudicate.

nadler has pushed the limits today - although i am not convinced yet that fault is entirely his to bare.

the white house has, with its blanket exec priv decree, seemingly said...to the house "bring it on"....

it is a political calculus with the seams of constitutional separation at the strain.

trump knows that he has the senate in his pocket.
impeachment, were it to come - for just reason or not - would seemingly be dismissed in the senate.
also, the very process would be protracted and messy and... easily spun by a true spinmaster.
likewise, knowing this, he baits the house into going down this path...
you can't have mueller.
you can't have mcchan.
you can't have barr.
now you can't have anything...
impeach me.
the gamble is that the house must produce something ironclad enough to break the senate bloc...
go ahead, impeach me

the reasonable - if that is appropriate... perhaps the most savvy one
is the speaker of the house...
who clearly understands the political pitfall of proceeding
under trolled anger rather than ironclad substance.

she demonstrates that she has indeed learned the new game...
does not jump at the immediate troll - catching nothing but blue smoke...
(compare the rhetoric of liz warren)

still, this (if it be crisis) crisis is curiously unique
in that the very institution of co-equal separate branches
are being thrown into one another as props
in what boils down to a political battle of competing hubris.

(you could inject nixon into the argument at this point, but... the circumstances and apparent disdain for political norm make it entirely other)

the other circumstance that will have to be resolved does go to substance:

the republican leadership on the hill did vote unanimously to have a full mueller report made available for review by select members. only a less redacted version was provided...
soon after that was reviewed, the narrative quickly and unequivocally became....

case closed...
nothing to see here...
moving on...


remember what the redactions are....
grand jury precedings
and ongoing ancillary cases
emerging from special counsel investigation
being brought in state and lower federal court...

person #1 and all that....

things... enjoined by congressional act? and/or purposefully/ legally withheld by the doj without (legitimate) constitutional check/scrutiny...

again... either bait
or a smoking gun?

the calculus again...

the crisis - if there be one - is certainly one of throwing the branches into irreparable turmoil - an arguable contempt of the constitution - in deference to political ego.

i honestly pose the op because i do not know whether the current political collision jeopardizes the constitution and the institutions it has devised - in ways that the founders may never have remotely envisioned.

further, there is the political out.

mueller could end this by testifying - without the strictures of executive branch lordship - that there is nothing there. although... his vol 2 seems to suggest to congress to continue as if there is....

my op is still on the table.

 

[bellisarius]

There is NO doubt that Trump is going on the offensive. With the release of the Mueller report he know's that the democrats have backed themselves into a corner. They're playing defense by trying to stay on the offense. They made a bet and their bluff has been called. Apparently they're trying to make another raise. It's their choice to make but with the cards that are already on the table the odds of their having a winning hand are infinitesimally small.

I would think that the leadership would want to be figuring out a way to cut their losses, but they recruited, and received, a rather rowdy bunch in their freshman class that Pelosi is having a hard time reining in.

While they're tied up in the courts, by their own decisions, Barr and Wray are going to relentlessly move forward in the investigation of the previous administration. And that is precisely what has them panicked.

 

[cleaver]

are all the cards on the table though?
is obstruction of justice (as seemingly amorphous as that may be) not in play?

it all seems so calculated at this point.
trump is certainly remarkable for how he can game any situation with...
tools noone in recent memory has been able to wield.

the feel of it though, seems so terribly artificial.
of course, the politics say... protect the power...
but the undercurrent sounds more like...
protect the person rather than protect the office...
(dressed in protect the office smoke)

it is theatre more than substance on both sides.
which... if this is a constitutional crisis,
cheapens the enormity of its consequence if
hinging on ego alone.

pelosi is no idiot.
and you are right - ever so right - that if she opts to go forward she must corral her own rabble as well, if not better than, the other side of the aisle already has.

 

[butters]

when he had control of both houses, the republicans in congress failed to do their duty of oversight.

now he has lost control of congress, he wants to deny its authority as a co-equal arm of government. he seems to embrace the kind of "leaders'' like kim j and putin who have strangleholds on their government machinery with no-one pushing back against them, at least not effectively.

i'm sure he knows that this will end up in the courts, but that it will take a long time before the courts reach their (almost guaranteed) decision in favour of congress as is their wont. but by tying congress up in this shit, he also denies them time to discuss and debate other, pressing issues. it is a cynical move he hopes will pay off come election time. and by pushing his luck, maybe he thinks he CAN win with the courts finding in his favour - which would dovetail perfectly with his ideas of being THE boss, limitless in his powers. probably hopes to do away with the set 2 terms a person can serve in the position.

as i see it, he is trying to tear up the entire structure of how the american government works with its built-in checks and balances system, thinking it can only serve him well whichever way it goes in the courts. it is an affront to the system americans put in place.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Trump isn't gaming the system....the (D)'s are just full of shit and don't actually have anything on him.

 

[BotanyBoy]

now he has lost control of congress, he wants to deny its authority as a co-equal arm of government.

How is Trump trying to deny the authority of congress???

That's pure buuuu shit.