There's a lot of asserting in social media that we are now in a "constitutional crisis" because of the Trump Administration's seizing of Kilmar Abrego-Garcia and refusing to accede to court requirements that they bring him home. Yes, in many senses we are.
However, "constitutional crisis" feels like language designed as much to create despair as action. We are in a constitutional conflict between the Executive and Judicial Branch. That conflict has chilling consequences for the very concept of constitutional rights of accused. It is part of the authoritarian agenda of the Stephen Millers of the world. Crisis suggests that constitutional government is in the actual process of ending. It is clearly in a contested space. However, as Josh Marshall has noted, we can focus on the conflict between a lawless Executive and the Judicial Branch, but there are other nodes of sovereignty, including the states and the people themselves.
Democracy doesn't have an on-off switch. We are clearly in a period where things we thought were settled constitutional issues have become unsettled. We are clearly in a period of conflict over whether we will abide by the very ideals and practices that have defined at least American aspirations if not always our practices.
If you need to use the term "crisis," OK. However, nothing is finally resolved. Trump might very well win this battle in this moment. But he's going to die one day. All the outrages of Project 2025 can be reversed.
This sucks, but it is not final. What's more, while some of these issues are somewhat abstract, the idea that Trump could seize a citizen off the street without a trial and send them to a Salvadoran prison is clear enough to register with just about anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment