May 14, 2019

"What 'constitutional crisis? It seems to me the Constitution is in place, working as usual. There are some legal issues in play, but what's constitutional..."

"... other than that some of the various actors in the drama have positions defined in the Constitution and obtained by normal constitutional procedures? It was assumed that I would excitedly spring into action because of this assumed 'constitutional crisis,' but my response was that I felt distanced from all the ugly divisions, though I thought some good might ultimately come from the crumbling of the 2 political parties. They were 'getting what they deserve,' I said darkly, adding, 'We all are.' That brought the conversation in for a landing, and as I walked on, I thought, What constitutional crisis? It isn't a constitutional crisis. It's emotional politics, a national nervous breakdown."

That's just something I wrote in August 2018. I'm seeing it this morning because the first post of the day has some discussion of tags, because I created a new tag "origins of Russia investigation," because longstanding tag for the Russia investigation was "Trump troubles," and I imagined trouble for me if I labeled that post as if it were trouble for Trump rather than his antagonists.

DavidD asked if there's a tag for "Althouse troubles," and I said:
I don't blog about my troubles, any actual personal difficulties. What a different blog this would be if I did! Sorry, but I'm protecting my privacy enough that anything that would deserve that tag would not make it to the blog.

The closest thing I have is emotional Althouse.
So I looked to see what had gone up recently under that tag. How personal do I get? There's my annoyance at the badness of residential architecture, the time a man in a motorized wheelchair plowed into me, and someone was mean to me on Facebook.

And then there's the one I'm quoting at the top of this post, "Am I not all excited about the 'constitutional crisis' — me, a former constitutional law professor?" The question was something a "lawyer friend" of mine asked when he ran into me as I was walking along the shore of Lake Mendota, minding my own business.

The phrase "the constitutional crisis" must have been what everyone was talking about — what exactly was it back then?

And these days we're hearing "constitutional crisis" and what exactly is it now? The emotion of Emotional Althouse last August was cool and distanced, and it is now.

72 comments:

David Begley said...

The Dems now claim we are in a constitutional crisis because they know that the Fake News will eat it up. Controversy generates readers and viewers. It also supports the “Trump is chaos” narrative.

Ann Althouse said...

Too much wolf-crying. And who wants to believe they're chaos everywhere? That's not how the human mind works.

rhhardin said...

Some judge in Hawaii will have an injunction against whatever it is.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Trump was never supposed to win. Hillary was the deep state queen. The aftermath since is the reaction.

Danno said...

States ignoring their own voters and assigning the electoral votes to the top nationwide Presidential vote getter sounds like more of a constitutional crisis than anything Trump, Russian collusion, etc.

JAORE said...

It's called a Constitutional crisis because running in circles crying,"The sky is falling" is too obvious.

tim maguire said...

You are still correct--there is no constitutional crisis.

The Democratic Party is cracking up, but parties are not mentioned in the constitution.

Henry said...

And who wants to believe they're chaos everywhere?

That's a funny phrase to read literally. Who, personally, wants to be chaos everywhere?

Unless you're a super villain:

Who is chaos everywhere? I AM CHAOS EVERYWHERE!

buwaya said...

You actually have a general cultural collapse.
Long in progress but picking up speed.

The political situation is just a symptom.

The yelling is ephemera.

CWJ said...

"And these days we're hearing "constitutional crisis" and what exactly is it now?"

Alliteration. Nothing more. At least from those most invoking it.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

Maddow and the corruptocrats create and sell the collective talking point meme.

"constitutional crisis" is a manufactured skirt, hemmed to cover all the left's actual corruption.

Shouting Thomas said...

How confessional should an artist (blogger) be?

Your hero, Dylan, is 100% confessional. His work is almost entirely musing on his romances. He also writes his “rambling, gambling man,” stuff that is mainly PR for an image from his youth that is long gone... and not entirely true when he was young, either.

I can see how your personality led you to corporate law. Confessional disclosures will only be used against you in that field.

In my old age, when I think of this confessional approach, my first thoughts are: “I’ll only do it if the money is good. There’s a lot of shit in there my kids don’t need to know.”

Tank said...

Just the latest leftist hysteria.

End of story.

Mike (MJB Wolf) said...

Too much wolf-crying.

Yes and I think your reaction is the normal one, and much of America looks at the hair-on-fire style of Pelosi and Nadler and autonomically reject such chicken little-ing about a crisis. The Constitution is just fine. It’s the people who pinky swear to uphold it that are in crisis because they feel POWER slipping away, mostly because of their manufactured “crisis.”

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

@ Danno

States ignoring their own voters and assigning the electoral votes to the top nationwide Presidential vote getter sounds like more of a constitutional crisis than anything Trump, Russian collusion, etc.

The left are so desperate for power, they really want this. To end state's rights and hand it all over to CA and NY.

Phil 314 said...

Have we appointed a Constitutional Czar? Have we created a special Congressional Committee to investigate the origins of the Constitution and it’s later Crisis? Has one of the networks produced a nightly new show to keep us updated on this Constitutional Crisis? Have we begun to ration the Constitution and only invoke it when absolutely necessary? If I carry around one of those pocket Constitutions will I be required to register it with the Federal government.

I know a Crisis when I see One

Fernandistein said...

Pelosi Declares Nation In ‘Constitutional Crisis’
Yesterday 3:34pm

What do you think?

“It seems a little dramatic to assume we still adhere to the Constitution.”
Sarah Velasquez • Flame Snuffer

“She’s gonna need to put a little more effort into her pitch if she wants this to be the horror I focus my attention on today.”
Ritchie Horn • Compost Skeptic

“Just tell me what to hoard.”
Danny Oakley • Avocado Peeler

Danno said...

Phil 3:14 said ... "I know a Crisis when I see One"

I thought that was about pornography.

Danno said...

Same ... Has one of the networks produced a nightly new show to keep us updated on this Constitutional Crisis?

Ted Koppel may be available.

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

We need Marshall Law until the Deep State can be re-installed.
Nancy Adam Schit-Hillary and Bill and Brennan CNN-MSDNC nod in agreement.

Temujin said...

You were right in August of 2018. It would be difficult for some, but ultimately good to see the 2 parties crumble. (I think they both have crumbled quite a bit over the past 3 years).

And yes- we do get the leaders we deserve.

Charlie said...

The Constitutional Crisis™ is that Trump is still President. That's all.

Leland said...

Can you imagine the optimism in the US if we just received reports on the low unemployment rate, record low employment of minorities, and the decent 3% economic growth?

Last week, the weather was intense here in Houston. I put on the local news to track the conditions. Eventually, the local made way to national, and the difference in tone was instantaneous. Despite the bad weather, the local news was rather relaxing. The national news made it seem like we were moments away from needing a coup to overthrow Trump.

rehajm said...

Unless you're a super villain: Who is chaos everywhere? I AM CHAOS EVERYWHERE!

There was a Captain Chaos superhero! That's a real guy!!!!

of course he went on to become... Captain USA!!!

Timeless in these times.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Seems to me that it is Brits that have "Constitutional Crises", not us.

When is the last time we really had one? I can't think of any offhand. Disputes, sure. Crises, can anyone provide an example?

This might be due to the fact that we actually have a Constitution and the Brits just pretend to have one that they make up as they go along.

They have a fancier way of explaining it. "Making it up as they go along" is what really happens.

John Henry

stlcdr said...

Blogger Tank said...
Just the latest leftist hysteria.

End of story.

5/14/19, 8:06 AM


Unfortunately, too many people believe there is a Constitutional crisis, and Trump is at fault, so will specifically not vote for Trump to ease this crisis. This is the problem.

Just like Pelosi saying Trump was keeping the government 'shutdown', where it was specifically Pelosi and the House prolonging the shutdown.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger Danno said...

States ignoring their own voters and assigning the electoral votes to the top nationwide Presidential vote getter sounds like more of a constitutional crisis

Dumbass stupid, absolutely, Danno. Contrary to the spirit of the United States, sure.

Unconstitutional? Hardly.

Article II
Section 1

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,

John Henry

Otto said...

The media is the key. They will determine if it is a crisis or not. Hey have we heard anything about the recent Denver shooting? I said it didn't fit the narrative and will be put on the back burner and indeed it was. Never underestimate the media. As Levin says they are the real threat to our constitution.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Shouting Thomas said...

In my old age, when I think of this confessional approach, my first thoughts are: “I’ll only do it if the money is good. There’s a lot of shit in there my kids don’t need to know.”

Amen, ST, Amen.

I was thinking of this last night and thanking God for getting me this far.

When I look back at all the bonehead shit I've done in my life, I am amazed that I am not dead or in jail. Or died in jail.

And nobody needs to know about most of that boneheaded shit. Not even me.

There but for the grace of God.

John Henry

Bay Area Guy said...

#Fake constitutional crisis!

I think the odds are less than 50-50 that Mueller testifies before Jerry Nadler's Committee. The Dems are too wacko to ask him intelligent questions.

Unknown said...

It is frightening to see the “word of the day” being parroted by the democrat propaganda arm. Absolutely frightening, Pravda would be jealous.

stevew said...

"Constitutional Crisis" talk and assertion is what you get when the previous political outrage, i.e.; Russian Collusion and Obstruction of Justice, turns out to be a nothing burger. The ones yelling about this new and renewed crisis are counting on those people that are listening not to dig in to understand that it is a false statement. Sort of like the way the Democrats keep saying Trump condoned and supported the white supremacists at Charlottesville - over time people forget that the claim is false and the accusation stands.

jaydub said...

"In political science, a constitutional crisis is a 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" is the consensus definition of constitutional crisis.

Which begs the question, Speaker Pelosi, what exactly is the problem that you believe the constitution or governing law is unable to resolve? It can't be using government agencies in an attempt to thwart the election of the opposition party's candidate because the constitution and governing laws make that unlawful, hence resolvable through the courts. It can't be conspiring with another country to change the outcome of an election because that possibility has been investigated ad nauseam and determined to be a non problem, hence requires no resolution. It's not using intelligence agencies and the FISA court to spy on political opponents because that is clearly illegal, hence resolvable in the courts. In fact, it would appear that the only potential unresolvable issue would be evidence of extra-constitutional activities which the controlling legal authorities refuse to address. Since AG Barr is the controlling legal authority and is gathering the evidence required to address those questionable activities using his constitutionally derived powers, there is no constitutional crisis. Everything that needs to be resolved can be resolved within the existing structure of the law, including sending a few seditious power players to prison.

stevew said...

"2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,"

That is in reference to the elector's appointment, not a command to them to vote for a particular candidate, isn't it?

henge2243 said...

I think that you are misinterpreting what Democrats mean by "constitutional crisis". They are not talking about the founding document of the United States, they are talking about their own constitutions. By this, I mean that the prospect of the impending investigations and the prospect of jail time has them sh*tting and pissing themselves. I recommend Depends. Mr. Nadler should probably double up and wear two pairs.

Laslo Spatula said...

It's not a 'crisis' of the Constitution, it is Penumbra Emanations Of A Different Kind.

Sometimes the Constitution can be sculpted like a mountain of mashed potatoes.

I am Laslo.

ConradBibby said...

I think a interstate compact that (a) lacks the approval of Congress, (b) aims to subvert the means by which presidents are elected, and (c) operates to deprive the electorates of participating states of having meaningful participation in presidential election by ceding the choice of electors to the voters of other states MIGHT be viewed as unconstitutional. I don't think the language of Art. II, Sec. I should be construed to mean that a state legislature can do literally anything it wants in deciding how to choose electors (e.g., award the electoral votes to the top national vote-getter who holds a degree from an Ivy League school).

Earnest Prole said...

Democrats are having an emotional breakdown, but I can’t imagine what that has to do with the Constitution.

Earnest Prole said...

You actually have a general cultural collapse.

Grown men should be less excitable.

tcrosse said...

That damn Constitution is keeping them from getting what they want, hence the Crisis.

walter said...

Well..it's a "living document", right?
Then time to revise the classic line too:
"You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

Kevin said...

Running as a Joke!
Not Qualified!
Pussy Grabbing!
Stolen Election!
Russian Collusion!
Obstruction!
Constitutional Crisis!
Last Chance to Save Democracy!

You better stop, look around
Here it comes
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown
Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown

buwaya said...

Cultural collapse is not exciting, it is depressing. Until one reaches a crisis, but that is something else.

The emotion is melancholy.

Bruce Hayden said...

There actually was a Constitutional Crisis, when Mueller and his rabid Dem prosecutors came decently close to holding Trump criminally liable for firing Comey for lying. Their legal theory was that it was Obstruction of Justice to essentially interfere into a government investigation with corrupt intent. Sounds somewhat plausible, until you realize that they were applying it to their own investigation, making it almost impossible to shut it down. Even by the President utilizing his plenary Constitutional powers, because anything done to sit their investigation down would be treated as Obstruction of Justice. And merely trying to protect oneself from the investigation was treated as corrupt intent. And, as long as they could keep their own investigation ongoing, they could prevent adequately investigation of the extensive criminal FISA abuse that helped spawn their investigation. This was, in the end, the administrative state waging war against Executive and Congressional oversight and accountability.

So, if the Dems try to argue that we are in a Constitutional Crisis, I think that the proper response is to agree that we were in one, but then managed to survive it. The Constitutional Crisis was the Deep State working with the Dems to beat the Republican nominee for President, then working to destroy his Presidency. And then get an independent counsel appointed who was able, for a time, protect the various conspirators from accountability by preventing any investigation into their own wrongdoings because such an investigation would possibly interfere with their own investigation, which was being kept alive by threatening anyone who tried to shut down this special counsel investigation with Obstruction of Justice for trying to shut it down. That was the Constitutional Crisis.

Keep in mind that we have what is termed a Unitary Executive. All Executive power in our federal government is granted one person, the President, during his term of office. Any power that anyone else working for that government might have is delighted to them from him. The bureaucracy and its bureaucrats have no legitimate power except that delegated them by the current President. The bureaucrats worked with the political appointees of the previous Administration to throw the election to their choice of candidate, which puts us in banana republic territory. Making it worse, after change of Administration, the bureaucrats openly tried to bring down their new democratically elected President through investigating him and his Administration for crimes that they manufactured against him.

Phrased like that, I think that the use of the term “coup attempt” is perfectly accurate. This was the Department of Justice version of tanks rolling up in front of the White House to effect regime change.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger stevew said...

That is in reference to the elector's appointment, not a command to them to vote for a particular candidate, isn't it?

No, the electors can vote however they want. In most elections we have had faithless electors.

Remember in 2016 the Resistance(tm) was trying to get enough faithless electors to vote for someone else to prevent a majority for Trump. This would have put the election into the House.

Fortunately Trump had too big a majority but if it had been a dozen or so, they might have succeeded.

The idea is that the states would select electors based on national, rather than state results. These would be morally, though not legally, committed to voting for the popular vote winner.

Since some states (Nebraska, Maine IIRC) already split elector's votes by district, there is precedent.

As I said, the idea is dumb as dogshit but I don't see how it could be made illegal absent an amendment.

John Henry

BleachBit-and-Hammers said...

There was a school shooting last week in a Denver Suburb.

The shooters: One was a transitioning male/female. The other- a leftwing Christian hater. They shot and killed the only child of a Hispanic family.

this ides not fit the D-hack-narrative, so the media have dropped it.

Narr said...

Never let a constitutional crisis go to waste, what?

Congress has been gleefully offloading their responsibilities onto the executive branch and the garrison-state bureaucracy for what, 60 years now, and suddenly there's a crisis . . .

When this started, I thought it most likely to be a rogue-faction operation to set up a collusion narrative; since then I've learned that my dark historically-informed cynicism is no match for the stark reality. A bunch of GS-14s (15s?) with the highest political support, superhero notions, and eeleet credentials take it on themselves to ensure that power remains in the right hands?

The thing is so much wider and deeper than even I thought. So I guess there IS a constitutional crisis, just not the one I'm supposed to fear.

Narr
Cold comfort to see some smurfs indicted


Molly said...

To those who believe that there is a Constitutional crisis: What's the point of voting in 2020? The rich and the corrupt and those who disagree with you will manipulate the election until their side wins. Pull down the shades and wait it out until mid November 2020.

Larry J said...

A coup attempt by Democrats, the press, and by creatures from the Deep State counts as a constitutional crisis in my book.

Gospace said...

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...
Article II
Section 1

2: Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors,


And as I keep pointing out, that's been modified in amendments. 14th section 2" " But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state. And Amendment 24 Section 1 "1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax." The people of the state have the right to vote for their electors. Not the people of another state. There are really only two ways to do this. Awarding all the electors of the state to the states popular vote winner, as 48 states do, or do it the way I prefer, as NE and ME do- each CD elects one elector, and the overall state vote elects the other two. Awarding the EVs to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote denies the citizens of the state to vote for their electors. Awarding the EVs by proportion of states popular vote (some proposals) creates the problem- who did the people vote for? By CD you voted for the elector from your CD, and the two state level electors. By total state vote you voted for an entire slate. If you award by percentage of vote, well, maybe you preferred elector #23 on your side over #22, but the percentage says only 22 on your side go.... You didn't vote for an elector under that system.

States legislatures can choose one of those two ways- but they have to allow the people to vote for electors.

It is interesting to note that the 23rd amendment gives no such right to vote for electors to the residents of the District of Columbia, and the 24th doesn't either.

daskol said...

It's an Article 2 crisis: they lost an election, and the constitution is forcing us all to live with that.

Gospace said...

By way of EV history, GA was the last state to allow voting for electors, allowing it in the 1860 election. All the other states had done so by 1836.

Robert Cook said...

"What constitutional crisis?"

I posted this the other day on a different thread. A number of the items listed herein bespeak not just a constitutional crisis, but a complete abrogation of the constitution.

narciso said...

ah that was the Obama administration, cook,

robother said...

Ann encounters an overwrought lawyer on her morning constitutional around Lake Mendota. Now, that's what I call a Constitutional Crisis!

Nobody said...

A is for the AMERICAN POLICE STATE. A police state “is characterized by bureaucracy, secrecy, perpetual wars, a nation of suspects, militarization, surveillance, widespread police presence, and a citizenry with little recourse against police actions.”

I’m sorry, but is this Mad Magazine or is this supposed to pass for some kind of rigorous logical analysis?

The first three really have nothing in particular to do with the US being a police state, and the first two describe just about every state that has ever existed.

“a nation of suspects” Really?
“widespread police presence” So if there are cops around when you need one, that makes it a police state?
“a citizenry with little recourse against police actions” I’m sorry, but these sloppy and nebulous phrases like “widespread” and “little recourse” are just starting to get to me.

If you want to see a police state, go to Venezuela or Cuba, or China. Is Counterpunch trying to make the claim that the police state here is worse than there?

I agree that the Democrats have misused, under Obama especially, powers such as those granted to the IRS, CIA, FBI, NSA etc for partisan purposes, and thanks God that Hillary lost or that would have become our permanent condition, which is how the left rolls, and Obama was a part of the left, but have some perspective.

Michael K said...

As I said, the idea is dumb as dogshit but I don't see how it could be made illegal absent an amendment.

Or if Trump wins the popular vote. I doubt it will happen but the scene would be fun to watch. California votes 57 votes for Trump !

Nobody said...

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”

I don’t think that means what you think it means. I wish they had stopped before “by reason of” but they didn’t.

narciso said...

counterpunch, has always been a fan of the soviets, the Maoists, the chavistas, so mirror imaging, with a health admiration for the baath, except during the gulf war,

Nobody said...

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, - US Constitution

This has been interpreted to mean that the states can have agreements, but not any agreement that reduces the power of the Federal Government, which overriding the way the Federal Government “chuses” its chief executive seems to reduce it’s power to, you know, decide who is president.

Gospace said...

Nobody said...
The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”

I don’t think that means what you think it means. I wish they had stopped before “by reason of” but they didn’t


The 24th amendment emphasizes the 14th- citizens have the right to to vote for electors. Doesn't change the wording of the 14th to vote in a state for the state's electors. But it does raise an interesting question. Evading taxes is a felony. A strict reading of the words of the 24th- if that's the only felony you've been convicted of, you can't be denied the right to vote- any poll tax or other tax. "Or other tax" is a pretty broad statement.

Milwaukie guy said...

Isn't it said somewhere that the federal government has to guarantee to the states a republican government? Casting electoral votes in opposition to the voters would violate that.

Nobody said...

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the executive and judicial officers of a state, or the members of the legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.

So if they participate in this scheme, they have their electoral votes taken away? IDK

During Bush v Gore SCOTUS said that the state legislators have primacy. Not sure if that means that the legislators can sell out the people of the state and bind future legislators to do so.

gerry said...

Grown men should be less excitable.

And never wear shorts.

Ann Althouse said...

"That's a funny phrase to read literally."

Hmm.

Sorry. Who wants to believe there's chaos everywhere?

Ann Althouse said...

The answer to the question who wants to believe they're chaos everywhere is Butters.

Bilwick said...

"Constitutional crisis" seems to be the "liberal" Hive's Stupid Catch Phrase of the Week. I was reminded of it while reading one of my favorite writers, Paul Johnson, this morning. He was quoting some high mucky-muck in the Nazi Party (I forget whom--maybe Goering) who said that the Third Reich's constitution was whatever Der Fuhrer willed it to be. Given how collectivist the House and American society in general is getting, soon the Democratic Staatshtuppen will be telling us that the Anerican constitution is whatever the will of Congress is.

Gospace said...

Nobody said...

So if they participate in this scheme, they have their electoral votes taken away? IDK

During Bush v Gore SCOTUS said that the state legislators have primacy. Not sure if that means that the legislators can sell out the people of the state and bind future legislators to do so.


Primacy on procedure and rules on how to count the votes and when to stop counting and certify the election. The DEMOCRAT Florida SC wanted to change the rules AFTER the election. As did the Democrat Party as a whole. That's what the SC shot down.

iowan2 said...

During Bush v Gore SCOTUS said that the state legislators have primacy

The Florida Supreme court stepped in, and ordered a state wide recount.The Court had no case on appeal before them, they just got together and ordered a statewide recount. Something no candidate asked for. The courts excuse was, time was of the essence to meet the Florida constitutional requirements to certify the election in order to meet the deadline to send electors to DC. Time was ticking and the Florida Supreme Court took it upon them selves to make it happen. Problem was, as SCOTUS pointed out in their stay of the count, the Florida judges had no jurisdiction to order the recount
What SCOTUS reminded the Florida judges of, is the fail safe was the Florida House of Representative had the Constitutional power to name electors if the vote failed to be certified in time. SCOTUS reminded the judges of legislative primacy. In short a political (not judicial) remedy for a political problem.

Fen said...

There actually was a Constitutional Crisis, when Mueller and his rabid Dem prosecutors came decently close to holding Trump criminally liable for firing Comey for lying.

And that's why the Left is ginning up a faux "Constitutional Crisis" now:

"Constitutional Crisis by the Left, Constitutional Crisis by the Right... everyone did it so lets just call the whole thing off?"

No. Heads, pikes, walls.

Fen said...

A is for the AMERICAN POLICE STATE. A police state “is characterized by bureaucracy, secrecy, perpetual wars, a nation of suspects, militarization, surveillance, widespread police presence, and a citizenry with little recourse against police actions.

"I’m sorry, but is this Mad Magazine or is this supposed to pass for some kind of rigorous logical analysis?"

Yah, I fisked Cook's little love poem yesterday, explaining how everyone has tried something like this around age 14 and gotten frustrated with trying to jam expressions in to match the alphabet. It's pathetic.

As evidenced by that first letter. Police State should go under P. But the hack had to place an adjective in front to make it A. You can be certain he also employed mischaracterization and hyperbole to make the other words fit the letters.

Robert Cook said...

"ah that was the Obama administration, cook,"

No,it's every administration. It preceded Obama and it will follow Trump.