This afternoon, I will travel to Colgate University to participate in its annual Constitution Day Debate with Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School. The debate, sponsored by the Robert P. Kraynak Institute for the Study of Freedom and Western Traditions with support from the Office of the President, will address the following question: “Is There a Constitutional Crisis? How Would We Know?”
Professor Klarman will take the affirmative position that we are in a constitutional crisis.
Professor Klarman is the Charles Warren Professor of legal history at Harvard Law School, where he joined the faculty in 2008. He received his BA and MA (political theory) from the University of Pennsylvania in 1980, his JD from Stanford Law School in 1983, and his DPhil in legal history from the University of Oxford in 1988. At Oxford, he was a Marshall Scholar. After law school, Klarman clerked for the Honorable Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (1983–84). He joined the faculty at the University of Virginia School of Law in 1987 and served there until 2008 as the James Monroe Distinguished Professor of Law and Professor of History.
He has written various well-received and widely read works, including From Jim Crow to Civil Rights: The Supreme Court and the Struggle for Racial Equality to Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Movement, Unfinished Business: Racial Equality in American History, and From the Closet to the Altar: Courts, Backlash, and the Struggle for Same-Sex Marriage. In 2016, he wrote The Framers’ Coup: The Making of the US Constitution.
The moderator for the debate will be Stephen Garvey, A. Robert Noll Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, who writes and teaches in the areas of capital punishment, criminal law, and the philosophy of criminal law. After graduating from Yale Law School, Professor Garvey clerked for the Honorable Wilfred Feinberg of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and then practiced at the Washington, D.C. firm of Covington & Burling. He joined the Cornell Law School Faculty in 1994. Garvey received his MPhil in Politics from Oxford University (University College), Oxford, England, in 1989, and a BA in Political Science from Colgate University in 1987.
It is a great pleasure to return to Colgate University and to join these two esteemed academics for this event.
I thought that Prof Turley had some very effective rejoinders. For example Prof Turley, in response to Prof. Klarman’s clear implication that people opposed to the Progressive views are uninformed, asked if the reason that people do not generally subscribe to Prof. Klarman’s point of view is that they actually are informed and disagree. As an erstwhile avid newspaper reader, I had to be amused at Prof. Klarman’s charge that the non-progressives don’t read newspapers! Lets turn that argument on its head. The results on the 2024 election had Mr. Trump receiving about 50% of the popular vote. So if we had a generally politically balanced newspaper industry would it not be reasonable to expect that a statistical analysis of the newspaper coverage of Mr. Trump during the 2024 campaign would result in an approximate 50% positive articles (say give or take 10%)? While I don’t know the numbers for the newspapers, Media Research Center has reported that the broadcast networks were markedly biased in favor the Kamala Harris (“TV Hits Trump With 85% Negative News vs. 78% Positive Press for Harris”). I suggest that the newspaper industry bias would show similar numbers. Such pronounced skew would be clearly felt and understood by the “man on the street”. Hence, why then would the average person knowingly consume “news” that is pushing a biased perspective so distant from the national sensibility? Prof. Klarman and his like minded circle need to consider that perhaps they were the misinformed by newspapers (and broadcast news) through their biased coverage. So instead of targeting those people who “don’t even read newspapers”, perhaps they should turn their wrath upon the newspapers who mislead them as well as their journalism colleagues who deprecate objectivity and praise advocacy.
I would like to know more about Prof. Turley’s oblique comment that the 21st century may provide unique challenges to our Constitution such that it will generally be considered no longer workable. What might those challenges be, what are our constitutional vulnerabilities, and how might those vulnerabilities be addressed?
*. Did anyone save a copy or a link to the video of the debate? The website doesn’t have it? Please post it.
Darren, use your aba zabba and post it again!
Grazie
OUCH.. this may leave a mark on Biden.
_______________________
BREAKING: Ex-Biden Aide Jeff Zeints Drops Bombshells in Explosive Testimony on Biden’s Cognitive Decline and Confesses Hunter Was “Directly Involved” in Pardons
The reptile appears… go back under your rock.
BIDEN LOVER ANON??
Boy-o-boy.
Truth just drives you nuts. It’s no wonder you are a lib.
PS… seen the polling numbers. You pathetic libs are losing voters galore.
More bad news for ANO
Charlie Kirk was scheduled to speak at CSU in Fort Collins tonight, and 10,000 people turned out anyway.
This is deep blue Colorado
Truth? What a stoopid response. If anyone here is a lamentable bore, its you.
You got the smarts of a 12 year old Karen.
My apologies to 12 year old Karens.
Enjoy
LA Times
Pepper-balls, rifle rounds, drones: UC police get green light for more weapons.
WOW I guess the left is the real reason…
Having listened to the debate I came away with a distinct impression that Prof. Klarman was simply not addressing the given questions but indulging in a cathartic exercise in venting his rage. Prof. Klarman did claim that every thing he said was truthful but then somewhere in his tirade he wandered off into being wrong on certain facts, ascribing motivations to people that he could not possibly know, and using vague terms. This was not a good day for Prof. Klarman though I doubt that he recognized it. Prof. Turley did try to stay true to the debate topics and was very effective when asking if the reason that people do not generally subscribe to Prof. Klarman’s point of view is that they are not only informed but disagree. I would like to know more about Prof. Turley’s oblique comment that the 21st century may provide challenges to our constitution such that it will generally be considered no longer workable.
*. Omg, PT, Klarman at the debate opened with a blanket statement- everything I say is true and I have citations but won’t be giving them? (Paraphrased). He teaches at Harvard?
It was awful. It was painfully awful. At the end he
repeats, paraphrase, I don’t know what’s going to happen. That’s the reason for laws, Klarman, and plans. Of course when laws are broken no one has any rules to the game.
Condolences,PT, for your endurance and strength.
Happy Constitution Day!
Dr. Turley, thank you for attempting civil discourse in a debate environment that was completely exclusive of such. Your bravery and tolerance was admirable.
I almost didn’t make it through the opening “rhetoric” by Michael Klarman. Cringed. It was a thousand blippy Pathos contention fragments, none of which were truly viable evidence or arguments — even though they were stunningly vindictive against those he categorized as hated “fascists” and pretentiously (and falsely) presented as being actual suppositions valid as Ethos or Logos.
Two key points in the debate struck me:
Dr. Turley: “Lower the rage and address the crisis”
Michael Klarman: “The military says, we took an oath to the constitution, not the president”
The first point may have been “why don’t we discuss the topic of constitutional crisis and in doing so reduce our divisiveness”.
The latter is probably support of a military coup collated using the Gen. Milley approach as a viable (or perhaps preferred) solution to a Constitutional Government.
If one assumes the “debate judge” position, clearly Dr. Turley won the debate – Klarman never actually presented a position other than “hate who I tell you should be hated; the constitution has failed and government is currently an autocracy of those I classify as deserving hatred and power really should belong to those of us who deserve to dominate the hated”, and that generally would not win a “National Circuit” debate in the Lincoln-Douglas format.
However, in reality and today’s culture, the latter is more likely to be believed and followed than any attempted address of the published debate topic “Is There A Constitutional Crisis” — theoretically intended to reduce divisiveness though it was never consistently followed in the debate as an actual subject.
Thank heavens I am not faculty or staff at Harvard School of Law – would never want to be associated as a peer of that ideologist.
Earn extra cash every week from the comfort of your home! This flexible part-time opportunity is perfect for anyone looking to make 300-1300 Dollars weekly. Start now and receive your first IN payment in just a few days. Don’t miss out—join today. Tap on Finance Economy OR Investing.
Here’s what I do……
check out…
BAN FOR LIFE!
There was a note where Tyler Robinson talked about planning to kill Charlie Kirk. But the note doesn’t exist. What the FCK? What does Kash Patel take us for?
^ CCP troll. Ignore. ^
You mean the note left under Tyler’s roommate’s keyboard? The one the prosecution currently holds as evidence of premeditation?
Yea, make stuff up, we need enemies.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/09/right-wing-political-violence-is-more-frequent-deadly-than-left-wing-violence/
All we ever see is left wing political violence but don’t believe your lying eyes. Moron
Here is a partial list of left wing violence: BLM riots; Antifa; multiple attempts to assassinate Trump; Bernie volunteer tried to execute the baseball field full of Republicans; church shootings; pro life pregnancy center fires; Tesla vandalism; attacks on ICE agents; attacks on police (three more killed yesterday in PA); attacks on federal courthouses.
The MN shooting of legislators were by a Waltz appointee who claimed he did so on Waltz’s orders. The man who tried to burn Josh Shapiro alive is a virulent anti-Semite, Hamas supporter.
Keep gaslighting and lying to yourself if it makes you feel better. Normal people know the score.
Not sure who “Waltz” is. Any support for that?
Governor of Min.
Did conservatives burn down Orem, Utah, after the assassination of Charlie Kirk?
Keep trying.
You seem to think that ordinary people are blind.
While the beheading of the Hotel manager was not technically political violence – it was YOUR Fault.
People understand that.
And this nonsense that white biker prison gang are political but TdA and MS13 are not ?
Really ? Who do you expect to buy that ?
You do not seem to grasp – democrats and the left have been caught LYING repeatedly.
I am not talking about lies like Schiif saying there was more than circumstantial evidence of collusion.
I am talking about jiggering the data.
Whether it is academic papers or crime data or employment data or really pretty much any data at all that can be jiggered politically – You have done it.
We learned yesterday that the FBI had 92 Republican organizations – nearly all republican organizations under surveilance as domestic terrorists.
And you think people care that Trump declared Antifa to be a terrorist organization ?
Biden claimed the economy was booming under his presidency and there was lots of data – if only he could remember it.
But people know what a $hitty economy feels like – and you can not change peoples observations of reality by jiggering the data.
People KNOW reality and they KNOW when you are playing games.
John Say – these trolls think that if some left-wing website that doctors the numbers say it, it must be true. They want us not to believe our lying eyes. They are gaslighting. F them all.
This is not just left wing sites – though it has atleast a little to do with the destruction of morality by the left and the take over of academia by the left.
Economist David Romer did some excellent mathematical work proving that modern economic models are so complex that the unconscious bias of the preople working with them can easily produce whatever results you want projecting into the future AND still validate against the past.
I am not pi$$ing on science or mathematical models. Just noting that overcoming the effects of personal bias is really hard when things are simple. When they get more complex, when it is publish or perish, and when everyone in your scientific community expects a specific outcome from your work – The odds of your coming up with something else are near nil.
Romers work is applicable to ALL complex modeling.
There are ways to get things right, but in most cases today – they are ignored.
Regardless, my point is that this is not just about left wing web sites. We have a massive data corruption problem throughout the sciences today.
You want to claim that groups like prison biker gangs that are only marginally political are somehow riht wing violence,
Then YOU are stuck with TdA and MS13.
Worse still you are stuck with the blame for them because YOU let them into the country.
While it still would have been evil for Biden and Obama to let millions of people into the country in violation of the law – and their oath to uphold the law and constitution,
Still you could have vetted the illegal immigrants you let it.
Are there many decent Venezeualans who are likely an asset to our country – much the way Cubans have been ? Absolutely.
But you just through open the door to everyone – drug dealers, perverts, child traffickers, terrorists.
Then you did NOTHING to deal with them.
The Cuban illegal that beheaded a Hotel manager in TX was to be deported in 2024 – But Biden released him. Despite the fact that he was waiting trial for several violent crimes.
If you wish to try to blame the right for what is a political crime, then YOU are stuck with the blame for all the crime from those you let into the country without vetting.
You let into the country people no one would allow into their home.
Regardless – no one trust you
Once the ends justifies the means – lying, manipulating data, that is all fair game.
If you want people to trust you – you have to behave such that people can.
We discuss free speech here.
But those of you on the left do not seem to grasp that once you have lost peoples trust – no one listens to your arguments anymore. That is what happens when you lose trust – you can speak until you are hoarse. When you have been caught lying repeatedly – no one listens anymore.
You can produce all the reports and data and links and … that you want.
Your a know liar, most on the left are. No one will listen.
Trump’s approval is over 50%.
Dems is in the low 20s
you did that to yourself.
“Are there many decent Venezeualans who are likely an asset to our country”
I have to say that the Venezuelans who had fled Venezuela to escape Maduro’s regime and aren’t members of Tren de Aragua should be allow to stay. Because if they ultimately become naturalized citizens, they could be a rather decent sized voting bloc for the Republicans.
Then again, maybe they should go back to Venezuela and help overthrow Maduro and his regime and re-establish a democratic country. Like a phoenix rising up from its former self renew.
DB – I understand.
To an extent I agree.
But what SHOULD be done is we shoudl FOLLOW THE LAW.
If we want Venezeullans who are legitimatley fleeing Maduro to stay
CHANGE THE LAW.
I am PRO Immigration – we NEED about 3M legal immigrants per year.
That is 3 times the current legal immigration.
But it is not about what I think we SHOULD do.
We follow the law – and if we do not like the law – we change it.
That ars technica report is a dog’s breakfast of an analysis. Nobody ever told them the plural of anecdote is not data