What Is A "Constitutional Crisis"?

There is a lot of discussion these days of whether the United States is in a “constitutional crisis.” The discussion has some similarities to the discussion, not long ago, of whether the United States is facing a “border crisis.” In both discussions, use of the word “crisis” can be seen as a kind of signal, or a statement of tribal membership, or a big exclamation point.

If we disagree about whether we are in a constitutional crisis, we might be disagreeing about the definition of the term, or we might be disagreeing about relevant facts.

Here, for your consideration, is one proposed definition of a constitutional crisis, meant to give a sufficient (though not necessary) condition:

Definition 1: Two branches of government disagree about what the Constitution means or requires, and there is no agreed-upon way to settle the disagreement.

It might make sense to change the definition to this:

Definition 2: Two branches of government disagree about what the Constitution means or requires, and there is no agreed-upon way to settle the disagreement, leaving governance impossible in some important respect.

I am not entirely sure if Definition 2 is better than Definition 1. The addition in Definition 2 is vague. On the other hand, Definition 1 might lead to the conclusion that a constitutional crisis exists even when the relevant disagreement is minor and the stakes are low.

Under Definition 1 and probably Definition 2:

A) If a president decides to ignore the Supreme Court, and if the Supreme Court’s ruling is final, it is fair to say that the nation is in a constitutional crisis.

B) If Congress decides that the First Amendment may be ignored, if the Supreme Court says that the First Amendment may not be ignored, and if Congress refuses to yield, it is fair to say that we are in a constitutional crisis. (One question, of course, is what the executive is doing about the disagreement.)

Note that on these definitions, there are huge constitutional crises, and there are less-than-huge constitutional crises. There might even be small constitutional crises (as, for example, when the president decides to ignore the Supreme Court on a minor matter). Admittedly, it is awkward to have the word “small” qualifying the word “crisis.”

I have said that the proposed definition is not a necessary condition for a constitutional crisis. For example, this definition captures imaginable situations:

Definition 3: The national government and one or more states disagree about what the Constitution means or requires, and there is no way to settle the disagreement.

Or:

Definition 4: The national government and one or more states disagree about what the Constitution means or requires, and there is no way to settle the disagreement, leaving governance impossible in some important respect.