Don't get me wrong. I love Al Gore. I loved him in 1992. I loved him despite, or maybe because of, that macarena thing. I loved his debates, I loved his "creation of the internets." I loved him on that horrible night in 2000, I loved his lawsuit, I loved him through the recounts, the beard (rowr), the recent speeches. Really, you just have to love the guy.
He's highly intelligent, highly principled, very concerned about almost everything I consider a big huge deal when it comes to voting for someone to represent me.
I love him, but he's wrong. There's no constitutional crisis going on here.
Though if saying it would make a filibuster of ScAlito more likely...
A
constitutional crisis is when there's a breakdown, a
big one, in the smooth operation of a constitutional government.
An election that has no decisive winner? That's a constitutional crisis. A situation where Congress creates an impassable obstruction to the President or the Supreme Court doing their jobs? Yep, that's a constitutional crisis. A sort of governmental lockdown, where none of the three branches can get anything done due to the action, or nonaction, of the others? You betcha.
But a situation in which the executive branch is taking over the functions of the other two branches--when those other two branches are actually getting their jobs done fairly simply despite that?
No way. That's not a constitutional crisis, my friends.
It's a crisis, surely. It involves one branch trying to take more than its constititutionally-mandated power, absolutely. But there's a constitutionally-described method of taking care of this situation, and it's one that ensures (as far as possible) that there is no severe breakdown, a in the smooth operation of our constitutional government.
It's called "impeachment."
The mere fact of articles of impeachment being either necessary or drafted does not constitute a "constitutional crisis." There is no shutdown of government. There is no inability of government to function properly.
We may be heading for a constitutional crisis. I'm not sure about that. It's really too early to tell at this point. If the President is allowed to go on wiretapping and doing whatever he feels like doing, if Congress goes along letting him and the Supreme Court doesn't put a stop to it? Maybe we'll get there. But it isn't going to happen anytime soon.
What we've got right now, friends, is a little something, a common little something, called a crime.
And our government knows what to do about things like that. The fact that it's not doing anything about it right now does not make this a constitutional crisis.
So, my apologies to Al Gore, who I love like the highly-principled liberal politician he is. When Nixon was nearly impeached for his political marathon of lies, obstructions, paranoia-induced tape-recordings and everything else he did wrong, there was no constitutional crisis. When Clinton was impeached (though not convicted) for his extramarital obstacle course, there was no constitutional crisis. And there is no constitutional crisis now.
Unless, of course, it would make the Senate vote for filibuster, against cloture, or for impeachment. In which case I'm more than willing to revisit my definition of the term.