On "Constitutional Crisis": Part II

If a constitutional crisis means anything at all, it means an action or actions taken by a branch of government which calls into question the very coherence of the constitution, its actual viablility as a document. In other words, a constitution is truly in crisis not merely when there are forces that violate its words or its spirit; that happens all the time. A true crisis tests the value of the document itself. Why "crisis?" Because certain actions render the Constitution (as Sam Goldwyn once observed of verbal contracts) not worth the paper it is written on. Theoretically as well as practically, the litmus test of whether a true constitutional crisis exists is the existence of a citizenry ready--and determined--to rewrite the document. Now the extreme form that such a movement would take is a call for a constitutional convention, a phenomenon that both left and right in this country have always feared. But the founders, a sophisticated group who understood the real danger of inflexibility, created an intermediate protocol, namely, the offering an amendment to the constitution. In fact, as we saw in the aftermath of the Civil War, a series of amendments may be necessary. To some extent, these amendments may be seen as designed to preserve and maintain the state. During periods of severe crisis, however, their actual role may go so far as to redefine the state.