@jackk could you clarify what is the meaning, and significance, of a constitutional crisis? I’m honestly not sure what to make of that term.
My assumption is that even if the Jan 6th protesters had gotten pence to send the electors back to the state’s (or have the house vote in President) the democrats would have just challenged it in the supreme court.
The supreme court would either have rejected it as unconstitutional (Which it seems pretty likely m); or, they would have ruled that it was valid (highly unlikely).
Either way this would have been following the constitution.
And this would not exempt the rioters and protesters from criminal charges if they violated the law.
So what exactly is the crisis?
To the best of my understanding, it would be the use of an extremely novel approach to reading the constitution, one which goes against all precedent.
I’m not trying to belittle the above scenario; it obviously would have major ramifications.
But it still falls back on 1 of 2 possibilities. If the court rules that was valid- a legit use of a legal loophole- then while the dems would be upset, and they would push to amend the constitution to prevent this from happening again, the result would be that the president would have been elected according to the constitution.
If the more likely scenario played out, and the supreme court rejected the shtick as unconstitutional and ordered pence to confirm Biden, what would have happened then?
I don’t think anybody would have expected there to be an armed coup to overthrow the government. Even if people had brought weapons, they were to get Congress to not confirm Biden, not to stage a coup. Especially since their whole point was to uphold the government (in their warped perception).
Especially since by the time a theoretical court ruling would have been issued, national guard etc would have been mobilized.
So I really don’t see any potential for a coup.
At worst it would have been a “constitutional crisis” which just sounds like people getting upset over taking advantage of a legal loophole and violating the spirit of the constitution.
Do you feel this is an accurate analysis? Did I miss something? Is there another meaning to “constitutional crisis ” the I’m unaware of?