A few days ago, I had the occasion to debate Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School. Colgate asked us to address the following question: “Is There a Constitutional Crisis? How Would We Know?” Many asked me to post the video of the debate, which is available below. I was also asked to respond to factual assertions made by Professor Klarman, who invited such fact-checking during his remarks.
Professor Klarman stated at the outset that he would present a condensed version of a talk he had given at Harvard. As a result, he did not focus on the specific question presented beyond saying that what constitutes a “constitutional crisis” means different things to different people. Instead, he presented a list of grievances against Trump, the MAGA movement, the Supreme Court, Congress, and the media as evidence of the rise of fascism and authoritarianism in America.
The result was a bit of a disconnect between our remarks. I addressed the common claim of a constitutional crisis and why I do not believe that we are in a true crisis. I have rejected that claim for decades as hyperbolic and unfounded.
Given Colgate’s framing of the debate, I did not respond to many of the specific claims made by Professor Klarman. After the debate, some faculty members and students asked if I disagreed with some of those claims. I thought that I would respond now.
At the outset, I appreciate the invitation of Colgate to address this important question and the work of our moderator, Cornell Law Professor Stephen Garvey. I also want to thank Professor Klarman for his participation and his candor. Although the debate became sharp at points, I still believe that these events are important efforts to expose students to opposing views on the difficult issues facing them and our country.
I should also note, as a threshold matter, that I do not agree with much of Professor Klarman’s characterization of our current conflicts. This includes his repeated references to “fascists,” “ICE thugs,” and analogies to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. During the debate, he stated:
•”[The Republicans] are trying to steal the 2026 election.”
•”[The Administration] is indifferent to suicides committed by transgender youths. There is a word for that. It is fascism.”
•”[The Administration] is essentially telling the world go ahead and attack [transgender people] we don’t care.”
•”They are indifferent to higher death rates among African Americans.”
•”Many [republicans] are very uninformed…many do not read newspapers…”
•”There will be a pretext…I do not know how far it will go…What happens when …. [they[ shoot down immigrants in the streets… seize voting boxes…put troops in democratic cities to intimidate people from voting…that is terrifying.”
It is clear that Professor Klarman truly believes these things and, as he correctly noted, there is subjectivity in how we view the same events or controversies. I credit Professor Klarman for wanting to have an exchange on these issues.
Professor Klarman started his remarks by noting:
“I am going to be extremely factual. Everything I say I can cite check chapter and verse for. You are right to beware of misinformation today but you are not going to get any of it from me.”
He later added that he had spoken completely factually and challenged the audience with “what did I say that is not true?”
I did address a couple of factual assertions during the debate. For example, Professor Klarman claimed that
“[Trump pardoned] violent insurrectionists including several who were directly responsible for the death of police officers.”
As I pointed out, only one person died during the January 6 riot, a protester named Ashli Babbitt. The claims that police officers died that day are false, though often repeated by politicians and pundits. The New York Times helped spread the false claim that Capitol Police Officer Brian Sicknick died as a result of being hit with a fire extinguisher. Sicknick suffered two strokes and died of natural causes the day after the riot. As a past correction states, “The medical examiner found Sicknick died of natural causes which means ‘a disease alone causes death. If death is hastened by an injury, the manner of death is not considered natural.’ Four other officers committed suicide days to months later.” Other officers died months later from such causes as suicide, but there is no direct causal link to the riot.
I would like to now address five additional claims.
- “[Undocumented persons are being] deported without due process. Kavanaugh has said go for it, not constitutional problem.”
I am not sure what Professor Klarman was referencing here. However, in cases like A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Justice Kavanaugh joined his colleagues in halting deportations to protect the due process rights of these undocumented persons. It was Justices Alito and Thomas who dissented to allow removal under the Alien Enemies Act. The majority stated that the Administration “erred in dismissing the detainees’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence stating:
“The circumstances call for a prompt and final resolution, which likely can be provided only by this Court. At this juncture, I would prefer not to remand to the lower courts and further put off this Court’s final resolution of the critical legal issues. Rather, consistent with the Executive Branch’s request for expedition—and as the detainees themselves urge—I would grant certiorari, order prompt briefing, hold oral argument soon thereafter, and then resolve the legal issues.”
In 2025, he did vote with the majority in a 5-4 decision on Venezuelan immigrants. It allowed for deportations to continue in ruling that the challengers erred in not bringing their challenges as habeas corpus claims. However, it also ruled that the alleged gang members need to be given notice of deportation and the opportunity to contest the deportation. Kavanaugh voted in favor of that position. I may be missing what Professor Klarman is referencing but Kavanaugh has repeatedly voted in favor of due process rights, even if it may not be as robust as Professor Klarman might have wanted. There are cases under this and prior administrations allowing for immediate deportations near the border that occur within a certain period of time. I cannot see any decision where he has effectively “said go for it” and deny any due process.
2. “Washington Post fired a journalist who simply reposted words from Charlie Kirk’s mouth” and “[Bezos] just fired a journalist for basically saying something that is true.”
Professor Klarman made repeated claims about this controversy. It appears to be a reference to the termination of former Washington Post columnist Karen Attiah. However, it is not true that she was fired for “simply reposting words from Charlie Kirk’s mouth” but for making racially inflammatory comments in direct contravention of both Washington Post policies and prior warnings from her editors.
Soon after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, Attiah went on to Bluesky to post an attack on him with reference to his race. In one, she declared: “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is….not the same as violence.” In a second posting, she wrote, “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”
Those were the comments cited by the Washington Post for its actions. The Post stated “Your postings on Bluesky (which clearly identifies you as a Post Columnist) about white men in response to the killing of Charlie Kirk do not comply with our policy.” The Post prohibits postings that disparage people based on their race, gender, or other protected characteristics.
Sources told the media that Attiah had been confronted multiple times by the paper’s management over her inflammatory social media posts. This includes one in 2020 where she ended up apologizing on social media for erroneously saying that a new French law targeted Muslim children. It is simply not true that the Post fired her for quoting Kirk.
3. “ICE agents acting as thugs are kidnapping people off the streets…They are building concentration camps… they show up on streets without any identification.”
This is a common claim made by politicians and pundits. However, it has been debunked as untrue. ICE agents wear vests and badges that identify them as law enforcement. As with other law enforcement agencies, ICE agents in plain clothes are presumably used on occasion. However, in making an arrest, officers identify themselves as law enforcement. While widely claimed, there has been no evidence submitted (that I know of) of a systemic failure of officers to identify themselves when making an arrest or taking someone into custody.
ICE is not kidnapping people. Once arrested, these individuals are input into an electronic system. Kidnapping is a legal term that does not apply to a case of a person placed into custody by federal law enforcement. Even when an arrest is deemed legally invalid or improper, it is not treated as a kidnapping. That is why there is no case that I know of finding that ICE has engaged in the kidnappings referenced by Professor Klarman.
The reference to “concentration camps” was made in a debate with other references to the Holocaust and the Nazi regime. Large holding areas have been used for decades in immigration operations under both Democratic and Republican presidents. They are not “concentration camps” as the term is commonly understood or used.
4. “Trump says quote ‘slavery was not that bad.'”
This appears to be a claim that was circulating on the Internet and was debunked as untrue. There is no such quote that I could find. On August 19, 2025, Trump criticized Smithsonian museums for focusing on negative aspects of U.S. history to the exclusion of more positive elements. He noted that there was “too much” on slavery. Trump wrote the Smithsonian is “OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been.” He went on to add that there is “Nothing about Success, nothing about Brightness, nothing about the Future.” One can certainly object to the comment about the relative importance of slavery and why it should be mentioned prominently in these displays. However, the quoted statement by Professor Klarman appears to be apocryphal.
5. “James Madison designed this whole thing without thinking about political parties… he was not thinking [of one party controlling the White House and Congress]”
As someone who frequently writes about Madison, I was surprised by this statement and wanted to present an opposing view. It is certainly true that some figures like George Washington opposed the establishment of political parties. However, Madison actually started one of the first such political parties in the early 1790s around the time that the Constitution was ratified. It was the Democratic-Republican Party created with Thomas Jefferson. The Federalist Party was formally established in 1789 by Alexander Hamilton and other prominent figures. When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, the country was deeply divided along partisan lines. Madison would have had to be naive or moronic to ignore the partisan alliances around him. He was neither naive nor moronic.
I think it was very clear that Madison “was thinking” about political parties when he laid the foundation for the Constitution. While Madison wrote about “factions” rather than “parties” in his famed Federalist Paper writings, he viewed such alliances as natural and inevitable. In a speech to the Constitutional Convention, Madison declared that “no free country has ever been without parties, which are a natural offspring of freedom.” By the time of the Constitutional Convention, the country was already divided along Federalist and Jeffersonian lines. Indeed, he said, in a latter letter to Henry Lee, that “The Constitution itself … must be an unfailing source of party distinctions.”
Clearly, Professor Klarman and I hold opposing views on a myriad of issues. The program at Colgate is an important effort to create greater dialogue and diversity on our campuses. (I will be participating in another debate at the Virginia Military Institute on the same question on Sept. 30).
In fairness to Professor Klarman, these remarks should be considered in their proper context. Below is a link to the debate.
In the midst of watching the debate right now, but just have to mention right off the bat that you use a disqualifying point in trying to quantify using factual information as ‘rage’….
If we’re not in constitutional crisis today the complete destruction of the nation will happen without constitutional crisis.
ano
If we’re not in constitutional crisis today.
We are not, the dams make every thing a constitutional crisis. Which is why, most are not paying attention.
Remember that story of crying wolf to often
A “Constitutional Crisis” is what progressives have instead of a Reicshtag fire–just a pretense to seize power and undermine freedom.
Wow look at that dustbin actually used more than 5 words. Sadly the argument is nonsense and childish.
OK loose prove you point…
We are not facing complete destruction.
We are merely at a crossroads regarding the policies we pursue in the near future.
Bravo Professor Turley. I loved watching your measured, thoughtful approach to this debate. Your opponent not so much.
Your opponent reminded me of an older version of the radical that Forrest Gump took down when he struck Jenny. “Sorry I ruined your Black Panther party.”
Shocking.
Harvard professor at debate with Jonathan Turley doesn’t debate but instead gives a talk he gave at Harvard. The talk sounds like it was written by AOC. It reads like satire from the Babylon Bee.
I knew universities/Harvard were bad, but I had no idea just how stunningly bad. This man is a professor. He teaches students.
Kudos to Turley for calmly and patiently going through it all. Like a doctor talking to a mental patient.
As usuual Mr Turley presents a reasoned and succinct response to rather inflammatory assertions made by Klarman however it might be useful to keep in mind Jonathons Swifts precept that “You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place.”.
What should actually be argued is why Harvard would keep a man of such emotional inbalance as Profesor Klarman on it’s faculty much less within shouting distance of it’s students?
Look at his resume. He’s a faculty member because he’s been associated with the most prestigious (meaning most privileged) academic institutions. He’s only ever fiddled around with words his whole life.
Plus, I suspect Harvard likes receiving the large donations his billionaire hedge fund brother, Seth, makes to Harvard.
This was a troubling “debate” on many levels. Does Klarman actually believe that arresting illegal aliens makes you a “fascist”? The left seems to be using this very hyperbolic word with immunity lately. Everything seems to be Fascist, and this is coming from a highly respected law professor. His point of view on this seems more like than of an immature, impressionable high school student, rather than a wise law professor. Does he believe that in addition to ICE agents, immigration judges are also fascists? Does he believe that we shouldn’t have any borders at all? You can’t even enter Canada legally if you have a DUI. Does he not believe that illegal aliens that commit crimes here should be deported? That system cannot work.
Even if it were true, ”[The Administration] is indifferent to suicides committed by transgender youths. There is a word for that. It is fascism.”, this isn’t even remotely an example of fascism. The word appears to have lost all meaning and its being used commonly in conversation to describe anyone or anything you don’t like. An actually example of fascism would be arresting transgender youth without a warrant, holding them indefinitely without a hearing, and either permanently institutionalizing them, chemically castrating them, or simply killing them outright. That’s an example of fascism. Not the failure to show what one person believes to be an appropriate level of empathy. I think we’re going to have some big problems ahead.
@Anonymous
This is a talking point of late, that being arrested and detained for crimes committed is ‘kidnapping’, or ‘disappearing someone’ (and to the best of my observation it started with semi-literate college kids) even though everyone knows precisely where you are and could likely even call or visit if they so chose.
Many in our younger cohorts are facing consequences or hearing, ‘No.’, for the first time in their lives, and it’s all replete with the accompanying temper tantrums, acting out, and indeed, sometimes violence of the petulant children they are equivalent to.
Disingenuous is FAR too kind for this tool that basically delivered what amounts to a leftist manifesto rather than talking to the person in front of him (that being the Professor). The hubris is disgusting, nothing new, but certainly more pervasive than ever.
And yes, our universities are *that bad* and have been for some time.
“You can’t even enter Canada legally if you have a DUI.”
This is close to true, but not quite. You have to go right up to the border and confess your record and they can decline to let you in. They let me in driving a rental car with a deuce of DUIs in the last millennium.
”[The Administration] is essentially telling the world go ahead and attack [transgender people] we don’t care.”
“. . . when …. [they[ shoot down immigrants in the streets . . .”
Tell me again how Leftist demagoguery does not motivate assassins and rioters.
That was a debate? The moderator: I’ll present statements and questions on our topic, then each of you will have equal time to provide a response. Klarman: I’ll just give my BS canned lecture…and make tons of Nazi references throughout. It works for my students. Turley: I’ll treat this like a debate and form intelligent responses.
It appears that the only time in history law enforcement got it right was on Jan 6th, now cops are back again to being jack-booting, fascist thugs.
Excellent! What debate!!!
I told you so. I told you there would not be a debate, that what you would get from Klarman was “word sounds”, disconnected from the actual argument.
Because Klarman, like most of his Coterie of Clowns, are simply poseurs, people who “attempt[] to impress others by assuming or affecting a manner, degree of elegance, sentiment, etc., other than his or her true one.”
Like the intellectual legal lightweight that he is, Klarman simply “plead conclusions.” From AI:
“Pleading conclusions of law is generally disfavored because a complaint must contain material facts to support these conclusions, not just assertions of legal principles. While a pleading can use legal terms for framework, it must be backed by sufficient factual allegations to establish a claim, as simply stating a conclusion without the underlying facts is legally insufficient.
Why Conclusions of Law Are Problematic in Pleadings
Lack of Specificity:
Pleadings require specific, factual allegations, not abstract statements of legal principles, to give the opposing party notice and allow the court to determine sufficiency.
Failure to State a Claim:
A complaint consisting only of legal conclusions is not entitled to the assumption of truth and can be dismissed for failing to state a claim.
Burden of Proof:
A party must present sufficient facts to show that a claim exists, rather than relying on bald assertions of legal liability. ”
Klarna is a garden-variety schmuck.
Hey floyd were you on this blog for 15 hours yesterday?
🙂
Harvard is TRASH
(with the exception of Jonathan’s son and a few others)
I appears the professor did not do his homework and purposely avoided the debate topic. In times past he would have been ridiculed for such a poor performance. Accountability has died and this is the result. His students aren’t getting their money’s worth from him and I expect the political violence to continue.
Maybe “. . . he did not focus on the specific question presented beyond saying that what constitutes a “constitutional crisis” means different things to different people”, because he can’t, because there is in fact no constitutional crisis. He sounds like a bona fide loser.
Nicely done, but perhaps a tad too congenial. Would be interesting to see if the hacks response to that courtesy was reciprocal.
Well done, Professor Turley and team, and thanks for the link.
I’m struggling to find nearly anything Klarman said to be factual, and anything other than the same distorted, biased, or simply fabricated malarkey we get from the dems or the msm. ‘People don’t read newspapers’? Seriously? We have achieved peak automaton on the left, and as usual, the projection is off the charts. I suspect Colgate ‘framed’ the ‘debate’ as they did intentionally, as with modern presidential debates, thus rendering them meaningless as debates.
All I see here is another arrogant, volatile, elitist ideologue whose head would explode should they have an original or independent thought, twisting words and events, and institutions that are lost beyond reclamation or reform. Sad.
A debate with Michael Klarman is kind of silly. Klarman is simply a legal flack for the Democrat (i.e., IslamoCommuNazi) Party. That makes him less than worthless.
Maybe he his, can’t you accept an opinion. Apparently not.
He/His? ha ha ha
opinion with zero facts
Got proof of those accusations? Didn’t think. Your comment is less than worthless.
As so often, your desire for civility gets in the way of calling out bad actors for lying and other intolerable behavior. I’m not talking about his right to say it. Of course he can, but when they outright lie, we should not praise their willingness to debate, but castigate them. As can be seen day after day, the left simply takes the truth and says the opposite as long as it is bad for Rs, conservatives or Trump. It can’t all be ignorance and delusion.
Fortunately, we have freedom of speech. Unfortunately, the left takes advantage of it by recognizing many people will believe them if they simply declare lies as truth repeatedly and they can get them to listen to nothing else. No one has shown their dishonesty more than you. I do not know why you do not go to the next step. The left will not love you any better for civility. They have no sense of justice or fair play, and certainly no shame.
No less than in Mein Kampf, they tell us what they intend all the time. And we have seen it too. Just recently in assassinations and attempts. They can’t win. We should be kind, civil and have empathy. But not to the point of enabling evil. Remember the often mis-attributed saying: A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is still putting on it’s shoes. They have the advantage. We – independents, moderates and the right – must fight harder to win. Did not Trump just show us that.
Love your work, Professor, but we can all do better.
Wait a sec…. you’re stating that Karman is a liar?
The USA just went through 10 days of free speech hysteria and have the unmitigated gaul to call someone a liar because you refuse to accept his opinions?
You learned nothing. Its has to be obvious that many people in the MAGA movement are just as ignorant, stupid and hateful as the people they so vehement wildly despise for having a different opinion.
Are we completely lost?
Lost? YES. Just look at these comments, so much stupidity and hate.
You might reread the column. He claimed his assertions were factual and could be verified with citations. Turley refuted them with references to sources. The professor refused to debate the stated topic and therefore cheated Colgate and the attendees out of a civil debate on a topical issue.
“calling out bad actors (Karman etc.) for lying and other intolerable behavior.” The commenter did in fact call Karman a liar.
TM – a person is a liar when they state as facts things that are false.
Prof. Klarman produced a list of “facts” most of which are easily demonstrated as false – others are nothing more than opinons or personal values.
Calling something a fact that is false – is lying.
Calling something a fact that is just an opinion or a value is also lying.
We did not have a free speech crisis.
Kimmel lied boldly and defamed millions of people.
A wide assortment of people – Nexstar, Sinclair, ABC, Disney, Bob Iger, Brendan Carr, President Trump, and on and on.
Responded in various ways to that lie and defamation.
First ABC/Disney went one way – then another.
I doubt the dust has fully settled on this.
30% of ABC is not carrying Kimmel.
Hulu/Disney+ are being boycotted.
According to existing law and supreme court precident that the democrats have foist on us since the 60’s the FCC has the power to lawfully and constitutionally act – atleast if Kimmel is still being carried by any OTA source.
I hope that they do not. I hope this is the moment we severely restrict or eliminate the FCC.
But they still have the lawful and currently constitutional power to do so.
We also do not know beyond early clues what the public response really will be.
Left wing nuts constantly confuse the rantings of left wing talking heads for actual public oppinion and more importantly for the actual actions of the public.
At the same time – I am not sure that Disney can be boycotted much further than it already is – it lost lots of people long ago – because surprise surprise – Parents do not want Disney to indoctrinate their kids.
we will see where things go.
Regardless, The left MSM is either downsizing or moving right – they do not have sufficient audience to support existing programming. They can not continue current losses forever.
In my opinion people like professor Klarman shouldn’t be professors. Especially law professors. Every statement he made was left-wing propaganda. None of what he stated is based in reality or law. Any reference to Hitler or Nazi’s as to our government or any current political leader in the US or elsewhere is ignorant and insulting to the eight million Jewish people murdered by the Nazi’s and the tens of millions of people who died because of Hitler and the Nazi’s. Professor Klarman must know of the horrors perpetrated by Nazi’s and ordered by Hitler. As far as transgender is concerned. A transgender person has the same rights as anyone else. Attacking a person because they are transgender wrong. The bottom line is that this professor is making false claims that he knows are false which in turn makes him a liar.
“The fact is, this is how I feel…”
Bravo for your measured reply to that, Professor
“While widely claimed, there has been no evidence submitted (that I know of) of a systemic failure of officers to identify themselves when making an arrest or taking someone into custody.”
When you include a caveat there is a good chance that the claim is true. Not all officers identify themselves. Not all ICE agents wear identifying badges and signia. Those that don’t and ignore demands to identify are and do pose a problem. Professor Klarman is partially correct on that.
“In fairness to Professor Klarman, these remarks should be considered in their proper context. Below is a link to the debate.”
Does that mean most of what the Professor posted was not in the proper context?
No. The claim is that this regularly happening and systemic. That’s not true. Nothing is perfect. Could you find incidents of an agent not identifying themselves? Most likely. But current evidence supports that the vast majority of cases do involve them being identified as law enforcement. At a minimum the claim is very hyperbolic, but made as-if it were reality. As with all things, new evidence can change things and acknowledging that is a form of grace for evidence-less claims, not a caveat that weakens the debunking.
The issue of ICE agents “identifying” themselves is complex. of course they should identify themselves as ICE agents while taking someone into custody; however, they should be under no obligation to make their names visible while on duty. When the Minority Leader in the US House of Representatives threatened to dox ICE agents, the risk for those agents extended from personal risk to risk for their spouses and children. Is it a coincidence that ICE agents started wearing mask shortly after that comment?
While the left is full of schiff on this.
The question is multifacetted.
First there is no requirement that a person arresting someone be identified in anyway.
Ordinary citizens can make citizens arrests.
But it is more dangerous to arrest when no identification of any kind is provided.
We have laws that make resisting arrest illegal.
But it is only illegal if you can reasonably know that you are being arrested by law enforcement.
At the time of an arrest the expectation is that the arresting officer can be identified as law enforcement.
Generally this means a uniform of some kind, that promiently indicates you are some form of law enforcement – Police, DEA, ICE, FBI, ….
Usually we also expect a badge.
But these requirements are primarily to create the reasonable inference that the arresting officer is actually law enforcement, so that if you resist you can be charged with resisting.
The ability of law enforcement to arrest is NOT based on identification.
At some point – the arrest will be documented. That is LATER. At that time the arresting officer is going to have to be identified BY NAME. That is a constitutional requirement. It applies not only to law enforcement but to every single person who is a witness at a criminal trial. We do not allow secret witnesses.
Eventually the arresting officer as well as every officer that provides evidence at trial will have to be identified by name.
We have Other restrictions that attempt to preclude the “nacht und Nibbling” – Night And Fog terror arrests that the Gestapo engaged in.
While all arrests do not require a warrant – an officer can arrest for a crime committed in their presence without a warrant. Generally a warrant is required. Further we generally restrict the execution of warrants to normal hours.
To conduct an arrest at 3am, officers have to convince a magistrate that there are special dangers involved that require such an arrest. The same is true of so called “no knock warrants”
I am NOT aware of any credible allegations that Law Enforcement is violating any of this.
“Not all officers identify themselves.”
Correct – further GENERALLY – at the moment of the arrest all they are required to do is identify as Police or law enforcement.
“Not all ICE agents wear identifying badges and signia. ”
Correct.
“Those that don’t and ignore demands to identify are and do pose a problem.”
Only if those are the specific individuals arresting you.
Being identifable as law enforcement is a prerequist to making an arrest – though not an absolute requirement.
The purpose of identification is to protect the police officer.
Resisting arrest is only a crime – if the person resisting can reasonably know the person arresting is a police officer.
The actual arrest is legitimate regardless of identification.
“Professor Klarman is partially correct on that.”
As Prof. Turley pointed out – it has NEVER been true that all police officers must be identifiable as such.
“Does that mean most of what the Professor posted was not in the proper context?”
No it means that Prof. Turley considers the remarks in the debate to be additional context for his remarks in this article.
A quite decent debunking, Professor Turley.
Much too decent.
Too kind, indeed.
Its not debunking, it clarification.
Good stuff Prof.