For the record: what is happening now is not a "constitutional crisis" (neither was the Saturday Night Massacre, for that matter, but the phrase just sounded good, so people used it).
What is a constitutional crisis? It's an emergency where we're completely at a loss because the U.S. Constitution gives no clue on how to solve it.
Let me give you an example: say some terrorists manage to smuggle a nuclear bomb into the Capitol, and detonate it during the State of the Union address. Instantly, the President, Vice-President, all their Cabinet (except the one member who's kept at a separate location in order to protect against this...more on that later), the entire Congress and the whole Supreme Court are liquidated. A massive tragedy and emergency, certainly, but not a constitutional crisis. In that scenario, that lone Cabinet officer becomes President, and takes the lead in having the states call special elections to fill their entire delegations, and appoint temporary congresspersons according to the laws of the state concerning them. Once that's done, and there are enough new Senators seated to form a quorum, the President nominates nine new Supreme Court justices. When they're all confirmed, the nation continues as before; certainly shaken-up, but persevering.
Now, take that same scenario, but throw in a twist: the Cabinet officer kept in a separate secure location, upon receiving the news, suffers a heart attack and drops dead. Now, we're in a real constitutional crisis, because there is simply no provision that would allow someone to be named the new President. How that gap might be filled, and how the repercussions of that (one faction of the military "temporarily" taking over on their own, secession, civil war, or whatever) play out, it won't be according to the constitution, which is effectively defunct.
What we're seeing now is not such a crisis. The Constitution specifies that the Department of Justice is part of the executive branch, and thus the President is in charge of it. If this President opts to act against what we all think of as the spirit of the Constitution in not letting the DoJ pursue justice impartially, that still doesn't mean he's "breaking the Constitution," just that he's acting in a corrupt way, obstructing justice, and thus betraying his oath of office. In which case, the Constitution, still in effect, provides several remedies. First of all, there's impeachment and conviction. Then, although there's some dispute about this, such a President can theoretically be indicted and tried, should an honest prosecutor within DoJ be able to go before a grand jury and secure such an indictment. Or the aggrieved party (the special prosecutor or investigating unit) can go to court and seek an injunction preventing the President from interfering with their investigation. These are all provided for, at least implicitly, in the Constitution.
Now, just because our Constitution provides channels of recourse doesn't guarantee a favorable outcome. Impeachment could fail, or result in a partisan Senate ignoring the facts of the case and refusing to convict. The Supreme Court could issue a binding interpretation of law that shuts down the indictment of a sitting president, or deny an injunction because they have decided to interpret the Constitution as preventing the President from being sued by his own department. Whether we like it or not, "constitutional" does not automatically mean "just." But, in the end, there's one more recourse available -- the ballot box. Vote out the President. Vote out his or her enablers in Congress. It may take longer than we would like, but that's the final ultimate power.
But please lay off with the "constitutional crisis" rhetoric. In the end, it's usually all just empty verbiage that gets us nowhere.
= new reply since forum marked as read
