Talk:Constitutional crisis

Germany

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)

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)

South Africa Coloured vote constitutional crisis 1951-1957

See Coloured vote constitutional crisis----Bancki (talk) 09:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Should the crisis between the National Party government (Apartheid) and the judiciary in South Africa during the fiftees be included? The Parliament abolished the voting rights of the coloured inhabitants of the Cape province (Separate Representation of Voters Act 1951), without following the procedure in the constitution (the Act of Union of 1909). The courts invalidated this act (Harris v Donges (Minister of the Interior) n°1 (1952)), the parliament wished to be the final appelate court in this case (High Court of Parliament Act) but the courts ignored also this Act (Harris v Donges (Minister of the Interior) n°2). The question was resolved in favor of the government by "packing" the senate and the supreme court (Appellate Division Quorum Act 1955 and Senate Act 1955), so that the changes could be voted constitutionally (South Africa Act Amendment Act 1956, Collins v Minister of the Interior (1957)).

G. Ford as first "unelected" President

Question for historians: G. Ford as first "unelected" President. Can this be clarified?

"Along with his own vice president, Nelson Rockefeller, he is one of only two people to serve as Vice President after being appointed." He was not elected as President or Vice President. All other Presidents of the United States were elected directly to the office or as Vice Presidents.

Clinton, Nixon: Are these really constitutional crises?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

U.S. Presidential Election of 2000

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)

I agree. The 2000 election led to a legal dispute, but one that was resolved in an orderly manner through the judicial process. Although this particular dispute had a great deal at stake and received a lot of attention, it is no different in nature than the innumerable other constitutional disputes that are resolved by courts on a regular basis. User: David Beam 11:07, July 18, 2005 (EST)

I Disagree, the 2000 Election was haulted by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had absolutly no authority to intervene in a State Election. Magnum Serpentine 21:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Forget 2000, what about 1876

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)

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)

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)

Suggest Revision to Definition of "Constitutional Crisis

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)

Review

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)

Reorganisation and more questions

I have added several crises, and reorganised all of them by country. There are hundreds of good examples of constitutional crises, so an organisation along these lines would have been vital at some stage.

I do disagree with the inclusion of several of the entries that were already existing, though. The Maltese crisis of 1981 was more an oddity of their electoral system, and was no more a constitutional crisis than the affirmative 1956 referendum on integration with the UK. The Argentinian crisis of 2002 was a typically political one, even if it did include rioting and threats of a coup, so, as far as I'm concerned, isn't a constitutional crisis of any sort. Iran-Contra is, similarly, not a constitutional crisis; an action that is unconstitutional does not count as a constitutional crisis unless it actually brings into question one of the tenets of the constitution. Bastin8 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that neither Malta nor Argentina deserve to be listed here. I would also strike out Canada 1982, Norway and UK 1936, as well as everything from the medieval and early-modern periods. Premodern states regularly have interregna and other such crises, but I wouldn't put them in the same category as a modern constitutional crisis. -- Mwalcoff 23:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The Norman Conquest was a stretch, but, since there's no article on succession crises, I thought that this article may well suffice in the short term. I suppose that the best way to resolve the issue is to create that article, and assume that those succession crises that were only slightly constitutionally significant (as 1066 was) are included in that.

Those weren't 'pre-modern' states involved, because my countries' (yes, both) constitutions have been written since the millennia before last. All of the resulting conventions of the constitution are still in effect, and all of the crises proceeded (more or less) as they would today.

The Canadian 1982 (to present day) crisis deserves to be there, on the grounds that it questioned the form of federalism in Canada and the right of the British Parliament to pass Canadian laws.

The abdication crisis of 1936, again, is an absolute certainty for inclusion, on several counts. The government ordered the King to resign, whereas, usually, it's the other way around; the Commonwealth Prime Ministers had a say, making a separation of the Crowns of the Commonwealth a possibility (although, retrospectively not so, under O'Donohue v HM as in right of Canada, even if the O'Donohue verdict was poorly-worded); it was caused by the King's position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, not by any significance of the Crown as in right; it created a 'second Monarch', with the fear that the Duke of Windsor would be a back-seat driver (or, heaven forbid, defect to the Nazis); and, finally, it was another old-fashioned succession crisis. That's more of a constitutional crisis than any other on the list.

The Swedo-Norwegian one also deserves to be there. The King refused Royal Assent to a constitutional bill; the government resigned en masse; the King rejected its resignation and refused to arrange a new government; the Parliament decided that this meant that the Royal Prerogative had lapsed, hence the King was no longer sovereign, and their bill was passed. Surely, that's a keeper. Bastin8 01:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll grant you Sweden-Norway, since I don't know anything about it, really, other than what you just wrote.

But if you look at the discussions above, you'll see that the editors of this page have set a (justifiably, IMO) high bar for what a constitutional crisis is. The abdication "crisis" may have been a constitutional dispute, but it was hardly a "crisis" in the way that the secession of the Southern states in 1861 was. Because the monarch of Britain is mostly a figurehead and never claims to wield any real power, I can't fathom putting it in the same category as events that may have led to bloodshed or paralyzed the operations of a state.

The Canadian constitutional issue doesn't fit, either. Canada adopted a constitution that Quebec didn't like. That's it. The patriation of the Canadian constitution may not be universially accepted, but it is hardly a "crisis."

Finally, while I know Scotland and England have unwritten constitutions that go back 1,000 years, they were still not modern states until the modern period (by definition). I therefore think it's anachronistic to talk about things like the Normandy Invasion as a "constitutional crisis," and I think most political scientists would agree. If we include every medieval crisis of power for every country, this page will be 500K long. -- Mwalcoff 01:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The secession of the Confederate States was a constitutional crisis because it challenged the idea of federalism and resulted from one side thinking that the US constitution gave them a right that the other side didn't. It's not a constitutional crisis because there was a big war after it, nor are other events not constitutional crises because they aren't succeeded by bloody conflicts. That's why, as I conceded above, I would probably withdraw the Norman Conquest from the list.

It was a conflict of opinions in each of the English cases, and the house was divided on each count. With Magna Carta, King John assumed that the Barons, as vassals, had no right to demand anything of him, hence his later repudiation. With the Break with Rome, the Pope (who was a part of the English constitution up until 1531) assumed that Henry VIII's right to rule came from God, via Rome, hence that Henry VIII could not declare independence, nor maintain it. With the British Civil Wars, Charles I assumed that, given the Divine Right of Kings, he could rule on any matter, as long as his sword could keep up. In each of these cases, the present British constitution assumes that these assumptions were wrong, and that Magna Carta, the break with Rome, and the trial of Charles I were all legitimate. These are fundamental parts of the British constitution, virtually unamended or abridged to this day, hence your quibbling over what constitutes 'modern' is incorrectly based (not to mention the fact that, legally, in the UK, everything after 1189 is 'modern').

One wouldn't include every medieval crisis for every country, since not every country has an uncodified (not unwritten) constitution. Since Swaziland's codification last year, there are only four countries in the world with proper uncodified constitutions: UK, New Zealand, Israel, Bhutan. Of them, Israel isn't old enough to have experienced your so-called 'pre-modern crises', Bhutan isn't intesting enough, and the UK and NZ both find their roots in England's constitution: Magna Carta, Break with Rome, British Civil Wars, Glorious Revolution, and all. One doesn't have to include every crisis pre-1776. Just those four will do.

On the Canada Act, the crisis isn't even over, so it's hard to say that it's not a crisis. We're still in the eye of the storm, 24 years on. If that was 'it' 24 years ago, how come Canada went through Meech Lake and Charlottetown?

The reason that some people question the legitimacy of the patriation is that they don't believe that UK parliamentary sovereignty applies over Canadian federalism. Actually, that's quite a strong argument, since, if parliamentary sovereignty applies over the Canadian government, that means that it still does, since the convention of parliamentary sovereignty dictates that no Parliament can remove the right of a future Parliament to legislate on any matter. Hence, either the patriation was illegal in the first place, since Québec 'vetoed' it, or patriation didn't actually do anything, and the constitution will forever remain subject to the British Parliament.

Finally, your assertion that Her Majesty the Queen has no constitutional power somewhat undermines the rest of your argument. I'd keep schtum about that crackpot theory. After all, if you assert that the Monarch doesn't have any power, then you also assert that the rejection of the 1999 Military Action Against Iraq (Parliamentary Approval) Bill was one such 'modern constitutional crisis'. Bastin8 03:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Listen, you may think that the term "constitutional crisis" should be used to describe events in the Middle Ages or early-modern period. But the fact is simply that the term is generally not used in that way.

Compare the adoption of the Magna Carta with Watergate, an event that did not meet this article's threshold for a constitutional crisis. A Google search for "Watergate 'Constitutional Crisis'" finds 42,300 hits, or one out of every 132 articles that mention Watergate. A search for "'Magna Carta' 'constitutional crisis'" finds only 759 articles, or one out of every 2,372 articles that mentions the Magna Carta. A comparison of "'Richard Nixon' 'constitutional crisis'" and "'Henry VIII' 'constitutional crisis'" reveals similar results. And remember, Watergate didn't classify as a constitutional crisis here.

Regarding what modern events can be called "constitutional crises": There are many constitutional conflicts in every country. In the U.S., there are constant turf wars between the federal and state governments and between the legislative and executive branches of government. But in order for something to be a crisis, it has to be more than a disagreement over the right to power. No one would call the Gun-Free School Zones Act controversy a constitutional crisis, even though it touched on some very serious issues of the federal-state balance of power. It was not a crisis because no matter what happened, there was no danger of anyone going to the barricades, the government ceasing to function or any other major fallout.

I live in Canada, and I can assure you that there was no "crisis" over the constitution in 1982, and there certainly isn't one now. Might the way the Canadian constitution was patriated lead to a constitutional crisis in the future? Perhaps, although it's unlikely. The U.S. Presidential Succession Act of 1947 might also lead to a crisis in the future, if the president and vice president die and someone challenges the speaker of the House's right to succeed to the position. But Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.

I didn't say the queen doesn't have constitutional power. I said she was a figurehead, which is hardly debatable. (In the case you mentioned, the queen rejected the bill because the government "advised" her to do so.) If the queen were to actually try to exercise some of her formal powers on her own perrogative, say, by refusing to assent to the government's own bills, now that would be a constitutional crisis. -- Mwalcoff 09:02, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

As one of the longer-term editors of this page, I think I might just wade in and clear some stuff up. The real question can be put like this: why was the Crossing of the Rubicon a constitutional crisis, whilst Watergate was not? The reason is simple: Casear crossing the Rubicon 1. broke the Roman constitution 2. caused many to claim power in the name of that constitution, with seemingly no judicial way to arbitrate between them and 3. it caused the constitution to change - both in letter and in spirit - to end the crisis. Watergate satisfies only the first condition (same with Iran-Contra, Gun-free School Zones Act; hell, even the assasination of JFK). But it, like the others just mentioned, was only a crisis of power, as it was resolved within the bounds of the constitution, and did not resolve in any changes, bar perhaps public awareness of the constutional issues, and judicial interpretations. The Lopez case, in 1995, was a clarification of the Commerce Clause, not a complete re-writing of it.

For me, the above three conditions (a breaking of a constitution, a lack of ability to resolve the dispute from within the constitution and a post-crisis change - either actual or interpretational - of the constitution) all need to be satisfied for an event to be called a Constitutional Crisis. A lot of the Medieval examples, for me, do satisfy these conditions. Maybe not the Norman Invasion - the succession of the monarch was a murky business at the best of times in the 11th Century - but certainly the Magna Carta, the Break from Rome, the pre-Civil War parliamentary sovereignty issues; and I would add possibly the rule of Stephen (the issue of who is a ruler in a kingdom with two monarchs, both of whom can command a significant amount of support amongst the ruling classes) and also maybe the issues surrounding the murder of Thomas Becket (the role of the Church in the judicial sphere). Batmanand 11:25, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those definitions. Avoiding what we don't agree about, I have deleted the Norman Conquest and Argentina, since we now all agree that they don't belong. The same is probably true of Malta 1981, but I don't know anything about it, or the reason behind its inclusion.

On a side-note, I don't think that the Stephen/Empress Maud/Henry II crisis fits the definition. True, it involved civil war and a complicated question of succession, but it was not a constitutional crisis, since there was no principle of the constitution that was questioned, excepting the rules on succession, nor did the constitution change as a result. The latter Henry II/Thomas Beckett example is good, although the entry would have to be well-defined, since the important event was the dispute, not the resulting (and more famous) murder and penance. Bastin8 15:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Cannabis, Obamacare state laws

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)

An editor or set of editors have repeatedly added "In 2011, the Alabama state legislature attempted to vote to preclude the Federal Patient and Protection Care Act from Alabama state law" to the list of U.S. constitutional crises. Again, there is no indication that SCOTUS' ultimate decision on the constitutionality of the act or on attempts to nullify it by states will not be widely accepted. If SCOTUS rules and the ruling is ignored, then we will begin to have the makings of a constitutional crisis, not before. --Yaush (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Gonzales v Raich - Not a constitutional crisis

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)

Honduras is not in North America

... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.242.37 (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. 24.22.217.162 (talk) 04:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Parliamentary Dispute (2008)

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)

Coup is not just a crisis

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)

Idem the self-coup of Fujimori in Peru.----Bancki (talk) 09:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Polish Constitutional Court crisis, 2015

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)

suggested additions

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)

Brexit

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)

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)

If only you would cite them. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@Softlavender: 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)

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)

Softlavender has reverted several changes I made to sections of this article other than the UK section, aimed at addressing verifiability concerns that she raised. Is this intentional, or a mistake? 24.7.14.87 (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Some high ranking figures have raised the c-word regarding Theresa May’s intent to submit her Brexit plan to a third vote last month, which would have been out of order under the rule set by Edward Phelips in 1604. While this merits attention as a possible future addition to the article, I do not believe it should be added just yet. May didn’t challenge the rule, and she obtained an extension from the EU. The emergency never happened, so we just have some dramatic rhetoric by politicians in the midst of events. This was not the first time the Phelips rule was raised, and none of the prior occasions is listed here as a CC. 66.87.118.159 (talk) 02:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Change to lead

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)

References

US border wall emergency

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)

Current

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Storming of the US Capitol

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)