Our constitutional crisis is already here

[Dill]

(10-04-2021, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, this has been an interesting conversation to watch from the sidelines. I have an interesting point of discussion, though. Kagan refers to this as a crisis that is coming. From the point of view of political science, a constitutional crisis is something which the constitution is unable to resolve. The secessions that led to the Civil War would be an example, because the U.S. Constitution doesn't really address the ability for a state to remove themselves from the union. However, this framework does actually address the main point of the issue Kagan brings up. State legislatures have the full authority to assign their electors however they wish.

Don't take this as me not being concerned about what is happening. I am in favor of increased democracy, of a good polyarchy,* and the moves that are being made by the Republican Party are decidedly anti-democratic (and that's with a little d, mind you) and against all of the ideals the writing of our founders makes clear that they held. However, this isn't a constitutional crisis. State legislatures passing laws the way they are is decidedly within their purview as defined by Article II.

You bring up a truly interesting point here, and lay out the problem clearly. If you are correct, then if some Republican-controlled state legislatures reject their popular election results and choose electors themselves along party lines, their actions might result in a social or political, but not a "Constitutional" crisis.

It's a point worth exploring. My first question would be, aren't there, perhaps, some unstated assumptions about the "full authority" given to states to choose electors? E.g., could a state pass a law explicitly specifying that only members of one party can choose electors, and claim the sanction of Art. II? Would this be no different from a decision that all electors vote for the candidate who won the popular vote in that state? Can states "legally" stack enough anti-democratic moves (e.g., starting with gerrymandering) to place control of electoral votes outside democratic contest altogether?

(10-04-2021, 01:51 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I wish people could pull their heads out of their asses and see what is happening. I truly do. But I also with Kagan and others that write these sorts of opinion pieces would realize how little they move the needle. It's just yelling into the void, honestly. Things aren't going to get better until they get worse.

Seems to me that "moving the needle" right now isn't the only standard by which to judge arguments like Kagan's, and possibly not even his goal. 

I believe people like myself and fence-sitting "independents" are his target audience. He's gambling that what he is saying will appear more illuminating to the latter as we approach the 2022 elections and anti-democratic legislation moves from state house debate into practice. For those who don't need convincing there is a problem, I do think Kagan deepens our understanding of the specific challenge Trump's party poses to the existing system of checks and balances. If I get that, probably so do others, and this may help focus counter-strategies. 

*A Dahl fan. Me too.