We’re only one month (not even) into the second Trump administration, and word is we’re in the midst of a “constitutional crisis”! So, set your hair on fire, clutch your pearls, and rage tweet!
Of course, you know I don’t think you should do that.
Google Trends indicates that the term “constitutional crisis” really peaked only in the last couple of weeks, and largely peaked in the Washington DC metro area. Outside the Beltway, the term has not gained that much traction. Why? Are average Americans just that disconnected from the impending authoritarian takeover of the Trump-Musk cabal? Do they no longer value the checks and balances of the Constitutional order?
No and no.
In this episode, I’m going to walk you through the emergence of the “constitutional crisis” term and the narrative around it in the American media space.
We’ll take a look at how the term has been used, what it’s being used to describe, and relevant historical parallels all in an effort to bring perspective and clarity to the “crisis of the moment” that is actually not much of a crisis.
Digging deeper
If you want a refresher on the Constitution, you can check out my podcast series that I did on back in 2020:
The last word
The Constitution… [is], in essence, a framework - a structure or form that matches means to ends. And it is a complex structure, so that some of our differences about the nature of the Constitution are tractable differences of emphasis rather than more fundamental differences of principle. To capture its key facets, we can think about the US Constitution as comprising a five-part framework: a legal framework, a policymaking framework, an institutional framework, a political framework, and a union and unity framework. These are not alternative descriptions. They are all true of our constitutional system. But at different times, we tend to prioritize them differently, with serious consequences for how we understand our common life.
Yuval Levin, American Covenant (page 15)
Share this post