Balkinization  

Saturday, January 13, 2007

Two types of constitutional crises

Sandy Levinson

As 738 days remain in the Bush presidency, I offer the following analysis of two distinct types of constitutional crises. The first might be described as actions that run counter to the Constitution, so that the "crisis" is defiance of presumptive constitutional imits. We have obviously had a lot of discussion of whether Bush's NSA policies and the like represent this kind of crisis. (One can obviously discuss a great deal of other presidential actions of more admired presidents in the same vein, the most prominent example obviously being Abrham Lincoln.)

But I want to insist that we can label as a genuine "constitutional crisis" the problems posed by the existing Constitution, at least in certain contexts. To adopt Justice Powell's language from a different context, we might view this "Type 2" crisis as occurring "because" of the Constitution, not "in spite of" the Constitution, as is the case with a Type 1 crisis.

What's an example of a Type 2 crisis? Let me suggest, because I'd be surprised if anyone would seriously disagree, is the consequences in 1860 and, only a bit less seriously in 1932, of the long hiatus between the repudiation of a sitting president (who thereby becomes a discredited lameduck) and the inauguration of the successor. This means that we in effect had no politically legitimate government during the Secession Winter of 1860; the same was effectively true, with regard to crafting international economic policy, between November 1932-March 1933. Most of the time the extended transition is of no great import (though i still believe it is a serious defect in our political system). But, every now and then, it can generate a genuine crisis.

So I believe that we can legitimtaely speak in our own time--i.e., this very day--of a deepening Type 2 constitutional crisis created by an increasingly politically illegitimate president who nonetheless retains his constitutional power to engage in all sorts of dandgerous policymaking. One can argue, of course, that it would be a Type 1 constitutional crisis if Bush ordered an attack on Iran, since one might well believe that he has no authority to do so in the absence of congressional authorization--and it is Humpty-Dumptyish to argue that the AUMF was a permanent delegation of warmaking power, anywhere and everywhere, to the President. But much of what Bush wishes to do is not unconstitutional, but simply, according not only to hotheads like myself but people like Republican Senator Chuck Hagel, potentially disastrous. To be sure, it is not the case that the Constitution leaves us without legal recourse. Even in the absence of a no-confidence procedure that would terminate Bush's presidency, Congress has the legal power to cut off funding. The problem, though, is that the Constitution itself makes such action extremely difficult, if not impossible, beginning with the presumptive ability of Senate Republicans to filibuster such a bill (I put to one side debates about the constitutionality of the filibuster) and extending to Bush's ability to veto any cut-off legislation. Of course, if Congress simply fails to pass a bill funding the armed forces at all, that would presumably do it, but aside from the fact that no sane person advocates such legislation, I think it's fair to say that such a "strike" by Congress, with regard to its responsibilities to provide for "the common defense" would itself count as a full-fledged Type 2 constitutional crisis.

Consider another example of a Type 2 constitutional crisis. Assume that, for whatever reason, George Bush leaves the presidency. Obviously, Dick Cheney would become President; that's just what the Constitution provides in the case of a vacancy. But wouldn't that itself be a crisis, inasmuch as an overwhelming percentage of the population (with good reason, I would suggest) regards him as basically demented? So then let's assume Cheney has a heart attack. The successor, under the Succession in Office Act, would be Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Putting to one side well-justified arguments that the SOA is unconstitutional, this succession would itself be a type-2 crisis inasmuch as it would provide that the opposition party takes over the White House without an intervening election. Some of you might wish to direct sneers at Speaker Pelosi herself; I do not, though I will readily say that I believe that there is nothing in the skills needed to become Speaker of the House, which are very real, that prepares one to be Commander-in-Chief during time of war.

Other examples might be offered of Type 2 ("because of") crisises. I suggest a number of them in my book (which, just so there is no doubt, I of course wish that everyone who logs on to Balkinization would buy and read--why else does anyone write a book than a desire that it be read by as many people as possible?).

Much of this posting is obviously "partisan" inasmuch as it continues my relentless attack on George W. Bush, and I certainly don't expect unanimous agreement with all of my specific examples. (Some of you may relish the idea of a Chaney presidency, after all.) But I respectfully suggest that the analtyic distinction between Type 1 and Type 2 constitutional crises is non-partisan. All it requires is recognition that we indeed have an imperfect Constitution that, on occasion, can be radically dysfunctional for We the People.

Comments:

May I recommend Mark Brandon's FREE IN THE WORLD, a fascinating study of the way the constitution inflamed slavery debates, for those interested in exploring the different forms of constitutional crises and failures. The first chapter, in particular, has a nice typology of the different ways in which a constitution might be said to fail.
 

I agree this is a useful distinction, and would add that a whole lot of constitutional theory is motivated by a desire to deny the existence of Type 2 crises by transforming them into something else.

The last few months of the Nixon presidency might qualify as a Type 2 crisis as well. Luckily Nixon had the decency -- or perhaps merely the sanity -- not to drag things out for several more months after the party elders made the kind of visit to him that I can only wish GWB will get sometime in the near future.
 

Many thanks to Paul Campos for his support of the distinction. To what extent might party elders be putting off a visit to George W. Bush becasue the alternative is Dick Cheney. Convincing Bush to resign might be a "piece of cake" compared to doing the same with Chaney. And then, of course, there's the Pelosi problem. The "answer" is for Cheney to resign first, for the Congress to confirm a respectred successor ASAP, and then for Bush to resign. But the very suggestion simply underscores the barriers put by the Constitution to resolving a crisis of the type we're discussing. Thank goodness that Spiro Agnew's corruption was uncovered in time to get Gerry Ford confirmed. Just imagine how much worse things might have been had it been disclosed only in the last days of the Nixon Administration. Would Nixon have felt the same pressure from party elders to get the hell out had Carl Albert been the beneficiary?

I also agree with Mark Graber tha Mark Brandon's book offers a good discussion of the "type 2" problem, as does Mark Graber's book itself, of course.
 

I'm reading Sandy's new book now -- chalk up another sale to Balkinization -- and find his arguments on this general topic compelling. (For me, the Bush administration is having the same cognitive effect that Samuel Johnson ascribed to a noose).

But in the short run, we're stuck with this extremely dysfunctional and dangerous set of rules. What sort of legal "workaround" might be contrived?

Assume that things in Iraq continue to deteriorate. By this summer, or certainly by the fall at the latest, the Republican party will be in a well-justified panic that they might suffer a epochal wipeout in the 2008 election. (I think the fact that the three main contenders for the Republican nomination continue to support Bush's Iraq policy represents a bad miscalculation on their parts. I understand that as of today it would be difficult to win the Republican nomination while dissenting on Iraq, because of the peculiar nature of primary elections, but if things continue to go downhill then no candidate that continues to support Bush on Iraq will have any chance in the general election. I wouldn't be surprised to see Brownback or someone else taking a similar position end up winning the nomination for that reason alone).

Anyway, the safe bet with Iraq is that as bad as things look at any particular moment, they'll look a lot worse six months or a year from now. So, what to do? As Sandy points out Dick Cheney and Nancy Pelosi are unacceptable alternatives for different but equally powerful reasons. And I don't think it's completely unrealistic to expect that, in an act of self-preservation, the powers that be in the Republican party will let Cheney know that he needs to discover a "health" problem that requires his resignation.

Could we end up with President Lugar before the end of the year? (Scarier thought: President Rice) I don't think it's out of the question. But all this just underscores Sandy's argument about what an absurd rigamarole the Constitution requires us to contemplate just to get rid of dead presidency. And this is the second time this has happened in little more than 30 years -- an eyeblink in historical terms.
 

Perhaps "Type 2" crisis are instances in which a dysfuntional text (e.g. extended transition) leads to a situation that is at odds with the underlying principles (e.g. democratic government).
 

Well the solution to this is simple enough: impeach both Bush and Cheney at the same.

And much as I share many of Sandy's problems with the Constitution, all we're really talking about is the difference between being able to get rid of the President my a simple majority "no-confidence" vote, and frankly, I'm not sure that's necessarily better.

Our current setup presumes that you need more than a simple majority to make such a change, and frankly, I don't really see the present situation as a critical test case... The reality is that getting rid of these criminals should have 90% support or more right now, and the fact that it doesn't and these people are still in office isn't the fault of the system, it's the fault of our population.

It doesn't really matter if the car is a new Mercedes or semi-truck or a dune buggy if the driver is a two-year-old who doesn't know how to drive.

Cheney ain't the only one with a few loose screws.
 

I don't see any problem at all with Pelosi taking over, and I especially don't see any problem with her being commander in Chief. Being in Congress for 20+ years is way better preparation for that role than Clinton, Bush 2, or Reagan had... And being a mother of five is surely a better qualification than being a philanderer, a drunk, or a movie actor.
 

Is it possible that the Constitution's impeachment provisions are sufficient to cure this seeming defect, and the problem isn't a Type 1 crisis at all?

Perhaps the current problem is a Type 2 crisis, in that Congress's unwillingness to use the impeachment provision render it ineffective. A 'conviction' by the Senate in an impeachment proceeding is a purely political maneuver, perhaps tantamount to a vote of no confidence in parliamentary systems.

The 2/3 requirement prevents whimsical (over)use of impeachment, preventing someone like Newt Gingrich in the 90s from hijacking the government. Can 'high crimes and misdemeanors' be satisfied by purely (and overwhelming) political missteps, rather than any criminal violation?
 

The recently canonized Gerald Ford once memorably declared, with regard to his move to impeach William O. Douglas, that an impeachable offense is whatever the House says it is (presuming the Senate goes along and convicts). As a matter of fact, the public didn't buy Ford's argument then, which seemed too cynical by half. Moreover, dedicated defenders of Bill Clinton reinforced the notion that impeachment requires a genuine high crime and misdemeanor. Perjury and disgracing the office didn't count. Thus it would ill behoove such Democrats to be more latitudinarian now.

Charles Gittings would argue, perhaps correctly, that Bush has committed such crimes. The problem is that this is in fact a controversial position, and Republican lawyers will argue, unfrivolously, that Bush is not a constitutional criminal. One of my objections to the present impeachment system is precisely that it invites legalalistic argument instead of an appeal to what the ordinary citizen can readily understand, that we are currently at the mercy of a dangously incompetent President.

Frank Rich has a column in tomorrow's New York Times that ends with the notion/fantasy that Republican elders will pay a visit to Bush and tell him that its time to leave. However much they might be tempted to do so, I don't think this is realistic for reasons I have already suggested: No sane person would prefer Chaney to Bush, and no Republican can easily endorse a takeover by the Democratic Speaker. I rather like Paul's suggestion of President Lugar, but I can't see Bush acquiescing to it. Why should he, after all? Richard Nixon faced conviction by the Senate, which would presumably mean, among other things, the loss of pension rights, etc., not to mention the unique disgrace. By resigning, Nixon, like Saddam Hussein at his execution, preserved a measure of dignity. But what incentive does Bush have to accept similar humiliation? And what evidence is there that he would genuinely put the good of the country ahead of his own desire to redeem his pre-40 life by taking on the role of Winston Churchill standing firmly against all those who would appease America's enemies by an ignoble withdrawal from Iraq? (Of course, one can argue that the 20,000 troops represent not a serious plan for "victory," but, rather, an ignoble attempt to hang on long enough to hand off responsibility for withdrawl to Bush's successor.)
 

Professor Levinson:

To avoid recovering the same ground we have in the past, I would only make a couple observations:

I do not see the analogy between the transition periods after the elections of Lincoln and FDR and before they took power with the current status of Mr. Bush nearly 2 years before the next presidential election. Time will tell whether Mr. Bush will be a political lame duck over the next two years, but there will not be another elected President in waiting for quite a long time.

In any case, I do not see an all too common lame duck status as a crisis of any type. All lame duckery means is that the President has lowered influence with the Congress because he is not running for election again and does not have the popularity to leverage Congress. This tends to lead to gridlock, which from this libertarian's view is often a very good thing.

If you view political ineffectiveness of a branch as a crisis, then your crisis is compounded because the voters in 2006 have left us with a virtually tied Senate and a razor thin Dem majority in the House which is itself fractured into ineffectiveness on many issues like the war by ideological divides.

Finally, I would disagree that Mr. Bush's unpopularity in the public opinion polls somehow renders him unfit to be in office. Ms. Pelosi has nearly identical polling numbers as Mr. Bush. Should she be constitutionally removed? In fact, the citizenry is currently in a pissy mood with all politicians. This does not create a crisis. Rather, I think it can be healthy if it prevents the politicians from creating too much more trouble.
 

"Crisis" is a matter of context. I agree with Mr. DePalma that most of the time the ill-advised length of the transition period, or the existence of lame-duck Congresses, is not a crisis. But every now and then the press of external events makes what is only an unfortunate feature of our political system more accurately describable as a crisis. The easiest example is surely the Secession Winter. We'll never know if things would (or should, for that matter) have turned out differently if Abraham Lincoln had been able to take office on December 1, but no reasonable person could deny that it didn't help (except to increase the probability of war) that we had no effective government during that period. Theh winter of 1932-33 may not have been so freighted, but, again, so long as one defines the Depression (like the dissolution of the Union) as a genuine crisis, our constitutional system added to, rather than provided an effective means of confronting, that crisis.

I, of course, agree that the present situation is, if anything, worse than these two examples (which I offered only because I presumed that most readers would concede counted as a "crisis) because Bush has almost 2 years in office and, in addition, prospective successors, failing an elaborate minuet whereby, say, Richard Lugar becomes VP, are unacceptable for a variety of quite different reasons. (The fact that I would be relatively happy to have Nancy Pelosi as president doesn't make the change of party in the White House sans election truly legitimate, especially given the powers the US president possesses.)

I agree that unpopularity alone is not enough. What I think is different about Bush and, say, Truman, who was equally, if not more, unpopular during the Korean War, is the genuine dread felt by many (most?) of Bush's opponents as to what this ignorant, obdurate, possibly messianic, man is capable of doing. Those who disagree with this last sentence, of course, discern no "crisis" and instead perceive "strong leadership." Perhaps that will be what historians 50 years from now will write. I won't be around to read it, but I'd bet a substantial part of my estate that it's not going to happen.
 

Professor Levinson: The fact that I would be relatively happy to have Nancy Pelosi as president doesn't make the change of party in the White House sans election truly legitimate.

Sir, is legitimacy gained only through election? That is a serious question. You often seem to push for pure democracy, as if the many well developed criticisms of such a method had been discredited once and for all. You have a keen eye for undemocratic elements in our system, and even make a case for some of them being unjust. But isn't it important to keep those criteria separate in one's mind? Aren't many of the undemocratic aspects of our system intended to avoid the injustices commonly anticipated in pure democracy? Shouldn't our objective, then, be less about increasing democracy than about increasing justice, liberty, &c?

As for the specific matter at hand, yes, George W. Bush often seems the type to push the button on his way out of the office in a mixture of spite and belief, akin to that of the extremists who he claims to fight, that he is bringing Armageddon in service of the Lord. We live in scary times.
 

Sandy: I have communicated with you before privately, but this is perhaps my chance to make my positions more public.

Rather than agonizing about how to get rid of the President, thus assuming the validity of the present setup, we might instead use this crisis as an opportunity to start the process of draining the power the President asserts from him, and shifting it to the House of Representatives, where it should be. This could be done without any Constitutional change simply by having the House assert more power over the Cabinet officers, making them responsible to the House rather than to the President. The original cabinet offices were set up by the first Congress after the Constitution was ratified, and subsequent offices followed its example. The Treasury Department was in fact set up to be responsible primarily to the Congress, but this was eventually given up. The state and war departments were made responsible to the President, but these laws could simply be changed. Granted there have been court decisions upholding the power of the President to hire and fire cabinet officers, but this too could change. There is also a tradition that the court stays out of disputes between the executive and legislative branches, holding that these are political, not legal issues. Granted also that the House at present would not be capable of handling the responsibilities of governing the executive, but as it acquired power, I am confident it would reorganize. Such changes would not solve the immediate problem of Bush, but it would start a process that would prevent further Bushes.

GYL
 

Mr. Larsen:

There is one small obstacle to the House attempting to run the executive branch by enacting a statute placing departments of the Executive under legislative control - Article II makes the President the sole executive in the government.

Funny, I do not remember this outcry among Dems for a transfer of executive power to the Congress when the Speaker of the House was named Gingrich and the lame duck President was named Clinton.

These impassioned arguments are precisely why the founders made the Constitution difficult to amend so transient political majorities could not do mischief to the checks and balances contained in the document.
 

Responding to Robert Link:

I am not a "pure majoritarian," but I do believe that elections play a special role in any system that purports to be democratic, as ours (with whatever degree of plausibility) does. So long as we retain a separately elected President (the merits of which I would like to see more openly discussed, especially because I don't where I stand on tis issue), then I think it is imperative that the party that wins the election not be displaceable without an intervening election. Note that I say "party" and not "winning candidate." But I take it that I've made more than clear my dismay at our inability to dislodge a dangerously dysfunctional incumbent.

As I've posted elsewhere, this is a perfect time for Speaker Pelosi and President pro Tem Byrd to exhibit real statespersonship by moving to repeal our current Succession in Office Act and returning to the prior version by which succession went to the Cabinet. Or, in the alternative, as suggested to me by someone in the current Congress, succession could go to the highest ranking official in the House or Senate of the presdint's own party. The House is relatively serious with regard to whom it designates as Speaker. The Senate, of course, is absolutely frivolous with regard to the President pro Tem. Perhaps the answer is to remove that ceremonial official from the succession entirely and place it instead in the majority or minority leader, depending on party.
 

Professor Levinson: I am not a "pure majoritarian..."

I never really thought you were. ;) But sometimes you beat that drum pretty loud.

Professor Levinson: ...but I do believe that elections play a special role in any system that purports to be democratic...

A point with which I can only agree.

Professor Levinson: I think it is imperative that the party that wins the election not be displaceable without an intervening election.

On this I cannot agree so quickly. Is a party any less prone to incompetence than a President? Should we be saddled with, say, a Democratic party riddled bona fide "bloody revolution oriented Communists", or a Republican party owned by PNAC? It certainly seems like an open question to me.
 

"The problem, though, is that the Constitution itself makes such action extremely difficult, if not impossible..."

I think we can distinguish between, "Extremely difficult, if not impossible", and "requires achieving some sort of consensus".
 

As I have posted before, I think you are prone to a large degree of hyperbole in both your estimation of the current "crisis" and GWB's overall popularity.

Taking the popularity angle first, in the recent elections D's received a stunning . . . 52% of the congressional votes cast. The total D popular vote was 39.6M D, 34.7 R and 1.8 M other. This is despite the Foley debacle which I would bet was probably worth a point or two in the D's favor. If GWB is such a grossly incompetent and hated president, shouldn't the D's have reached at least the high 50's? Many of the disatisfaction with GWB on the R side is he is not republican enough; given the choice, I can assure you they would pick him over any D. By contrast in the presidential election, GWB got 62M popular votes to Kerry's 59. So essentially GWB when he last stood for election got 23 M more votes than the congrssional D's got this time. Is he in a bad spot with generally low ratings? You bet. Could things turn around? You bet. Bottom line your estimation of Bush's repudiation is way overblown. Give me six months and a general election for President between Pelosi and Bush and do you think Pelosi would win in a landslide? I sure don't and would give you at least even odds of Bush beating Pelosi. While I'm sure in the circles you run in there is a complete repudiation I don't thin you can make the case that there has been a similar surge in the public at large. General unhappiness for sure, but all presidents go through these rough spots, some more than others; these days the swings are more pronounced but that is another topic. . .

As for the nature of the "crisis" again, you overstate things tremendously. At worst, we leave Iraq and leave them to their own devices and we lose the war, although win it in the sense of toppline Hussein. A hit to American prestige, sure, but less than the hit after Vietnam, probably about the same as the Iranian hostage crisis. At the least, we showed our military can quickly topple a regime, we just can't stay around when a bunch of people would rather kill each other. In the overall scheme of things, that is certainly not good, but comparable to the civil war, the depression, the unpreparedness for WWII? Give me a freaking break.

So in short, time will tell where GWB ends up with his presidency, he is not as dreadfully unpopular as you assume with the country at large clamoring for his removal (although certainly a lot of leftists are) and the "crisis" of Iraq is not nearly as disasterous as you make it out to be in historical terms; certainly nowhere near the civil war, depression, failure of reconstruction, etc.
 

Taking the popularity angle first, in the recent elections D's received a stunning . . . 52% of the congressional votes cast. The total D popular vote was 39.6M D, 34.7 R and 1.8 M other. This is despite the Foley debacle which I would bet was probably worth a point or two in the D's favor. If GWB is such a grossly incompetent and hated president, shouldn't the D's have reached at least the high 50's? Many of the disatisfaction with GWB on the R side is he is not republican enough; given the choice, I can assure you they would pick him over any D. By contrast in the presidential election, GWB got 62M popular votes to Kerry's 59.

This argument is so weak it's hardly worth a response, but it IS a holiday....

There's little point in comparing Congressional vote totals in off-year elections to Presidential vote totals. Given the lower turnout, it's inevitable that a President will get more total votes than the combined Congressional candidates of either party in an off-year election.

Moreover, you switched from percentages to raw numbers in order to make your point. Bush got less than 51% of the vote in 2004 (and far less in 2000). In contrast, Dem Congressional candidates got over 52% in 2006. Thus, your own numbers undercut your point.

I'd go through the rest of the post, but it IS a holiday....
 

Post a Comment

Older Posts
Newer Posts
Home