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.
Professor Klarman’s opening claims seem to mimic the global warnings claims leading to catastrophic death of planet earth, beginning about 1977’s to current date. But Prof. Klarman seems to claim that the current direction of the political leaning will be the end of our government as we know it.
I believe that Prof. Klarman’s claims, leading to the destruction of our Republic is preaching the liberal gospel (without the good news) and like the global destruction from climate changes is a real fear monger, leading young people to be scared to death of how this planet will destroy itself, even thou the solutions claimed by climate purveyors don’t work. So the hell if we froze to death – but if you have enough money you can just cut down the forests for wood to burn!
And Prof. Klarman sees his life thru a pig’s eye.
I am deeply troubled by the extreme rhetoric of the left. Unhinged arguments
Klaman lists multiple things and around minute 40 makes a list saying only Trump did things … but guess what, all of his statements were actually describing Biden. Klaman asks which Democrat presidents have :
– Incited a violent attack on the capitol – Biden and Democrats incited violent attacks in multiple cities and federal buildings for BLM and genuflected to George Floyd.
– Denying a loss in an election – HRC and the entire Obama administration tried to destroy Trump’s election by disseminating laws via a fake dossier
– Threatening to take away citizenship – Well Trump didn’t do that so Klaman is crazy
– Incarcerating political opponents – OMG the entire 2020-2024 was spent trying to incarcerate political opponents by the Biden Administration and the Democrat structure
– Taking bribes from foreign entities – The Biden family clearly did this, receiving money from Ukraine, China, and multiple other foreign entities.
– Doubling your net worth via politics – The Trump’s were less rich after the first term; Biden has worked for the government for 50 years and is worth $9MM
– Refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress – happens all the time. The President is an executive.
Klarman is a scary figure and I can’t believe he teaches students. He is incapable of considering logical argumentation and is focused on creating histrionics and emotional rage. He’s a full on liar and the reason why Higher Ed has lost the faith of the US public.
Wow, a lying scumbag progressive! I’m shocked!
Among a certain significant ratio of Muslims, an Islamist who departs the faith and speaks badly about Islam deserves the death penalty. Charlie Kirk (RIP) interviewed an ex-Muslim/now Christian believer who disclosed to Charlie bad, terrible Islamic doctrine and practice.
Ponder this proof that Progressivism is the most evil and putrid Western religion, worse even than the most radical Islamist: that ex-Muslim is alive while Charlie is dead.
Professor Turley your arguments and rebuttals were exemplary. I’m sharing this debate with family and friends, many who are Clinton democrats. And by the way, the Harvard professor was the poster child for the elitest school which many of us now mock or despise
This wasn’t a “debate.” This was a mere diatribe, on one hand, and an attempt at substantive dialog, on the other. All I heard from Klarman was that he not only disagrees with, but hates, everything Trump is doing and stands for AND, if you don’t agree with him (Klarman), then you’re just a shill, sheep, ignorant, indifferent, or just downright diabolical. Right. Just the kind of thing you say when you wish to be a champion of intellectual integrity.
(Poison) Ivy League schools are contaminated with faculty like professor Klarman, which is why Charlie Kirk’s TPUSA is so precious.
Voters that care about their children, need to reject the hypocrisy from both parties and most politicians. So far the 21st Century could be summarized as the “Lawless Century” led by the bosses of both parties.
Government leaders swear a constitutional Oath of Office to uphold and follow the U.S. Constitution – loyalty to a wartime governing charter designed to be followed during wartime and peacetime.
Ronald Reagan and a previous Congress signed a legally-binding (federal code) and constitution-binding (Article VI) torture outlawing torture and cruel treatment – modeled after George Washington’s view that cruel treatment was the most disloyal act of any American leader.
The goal is not to criminally prosecute American leaders and their subordinates following orders to commit war crimes. The goal is reforms to prevent it from happening.
As of 2025 – more than 20 years later – none of the government leaders have apologized for violating their Oath of Office. Their subordinate employees/contractors following illegal orders (Nuremberg precedent) that were loyal to their Oath of Office were destroyed and ruined.
In 2025, there are likely thousands of innocent American citizens destroyed, defamed or ruined from Cointelpro style blacklisting – many with no criminal record.
This “Lawless Century” harms Republicans, Democrats and Independents. Any politician disloyal to their Oath of Office can also take away your gun rights, can violate the 4th Amendment rights of women traveling to states where abortion is legal or any right.
In 2025, virtually no government leader is talking about this. It simply vanished down an Orwellian “Memory Hole”.
Every voter should watch “The Report” with Adam Driver. Some (not all) leaders of the Democratic Party leaders were covering up war crimes by some (not all) Republican leaders. In this true life movie, the Executive Branch burglarized the United States Senate to steal documents.
The good news is right now is the perfect time to vote to correct America’s “Lawless Century”.
This “debate” sounds like it should be re-cast between two constitutional law experts as part of an “IQ Squared” event, which includes an audience vote on the winning presentation.
I have been under the impression that a “constitutional crisis” is an expanding formal constitutional disagreement that results in inability to enforce or administer essential daily law, one that usually triggers expanding paralysis of other statutory and constitutional law enforcement. For example: 1) federal inability to deliver mail or regulate railroads following state secession and southern regiment capture of railroads and post offices; 2) congressional inability to enforce voting rules regarding members of Congress from seceded states; and 3) military custody of seized enslaved people as “contraband of war” . By definition unilateral secession was and would always be a constitutional crisis, while localized rebellions in widespread locations against federal or state authority might also qualify to the extent that they produced a standing obstacle to day-to-day law enforcement.
By contrast, a mob briefly breaking into the Capitol is not such a crisis, nor is Congress’s briefly postponing the certification of the presidential vote of a set of disputed state results, tho both of those could certainly be judicially found to be unconstitutional acts.
Were all far right now
hhi
Democrats are not violent
I haven’t been calling the Democrat Party the IslamoCommuNazi Party for nothing. Today’s Democrats are a fusion of the Cult of Islam, Communism, and Nazism.
https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1958620879056937328?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1958620879056937328%7Ctwgr%5E86c2f2598ce5eb14799aaa340bd607215b0b864b%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fgavin-tough-guy-newsom-threatens-gop-were-gonna-punch-these-sons-of-bitces-in-the-mouth
That’s funny considering he couldn’t find a gym with both hands and a flashlight or even know how to turn on the flashlight if his life depended on it.
There is an unbeleivable amount of bad news in the past week for Dems.
Trump’s poll numbers are up, Dems numbers are down.
Almost completely overshaddowed in the media is Kamal Harris’s word salad media tour.
While she is reinforcing why she lost. She is also pissing over Democrats all over the place.
Her book pisses on Biden. Pisses on Waltz, Pisses on Shapiro.
While she has been pretty much hidden for the past 9 months – her interviews are suggesting she should have stayed that way. She has blamed the Biden camp for failing to put her front and center and for not moving aside until it was too late.
The Bidens have responded by saying specifically at Joe Biden’s request – despite misgivings elsewhere she was repeatedly given oportunities that VP’s typically do not get, and that she failed miserably at them, and the reason that Joe chose to back away from his promise not to run is because Harris had been such a failure at everything they had given her.
I noted in another post that current polling looks bad for Dems.
The left assassinated a MAJOR MAGA leader and Republicans are angry but behaving responsibly – something democrats pretty much never do. This is a bad look for Dems and a good look for Republicans.
Roberts stayed lower court orders undoing Trump’s firing of an FTC board member, and separately the court converted the request for a stay to a request for expedited Certiori – that means it is likely atleast 4 court members want to hear this case. and the Questions being asked are not Should the FTC member be fired – but whether the court should reverse Humphries executor. Obama, Trump, Biden and now Trump have ALL sought to get the court to reverse humphries executor.
Humphries executor is a new deal era case that asserted that the laws passed by congress creating “independent” commissions within the executive with members that the president can not fire are constitutional.
The court has been narrowing Humphries executor for decades.
They appear to be ready to overturn it.
Regardless, Roberts stay means the FTC board member remains fired.
That likely means that there will be a similar stay on lower court decisions to thwart Trump’s for cause firing of Lisa Cook.
I wish I shared your optimism, but there are simply far too many crazies in the country. To boot, they are deaf to reason, and fanatically dedicated to their insanity.
Folks, this guy has been on the blog for nearly 45 hours straight. Trump Derangement Syndrome!
I see Democrat Adelita Grijalva won the special election in Arizona. Maybe trump and MAGA is past its expiration date.
Nummerous polls are showing that Dems are in serious trouble post the Kirk shooting and that if the election were held tomorow Dems would lose the house.
Dont trust me – that is what CNN is saying.
Adelita Grijalva won a deep blue seat that was vacant when her father died.
This is nothing even close to a D pickup.
This is a district Harris won by +22
If she had LOST – that would be huge news.
These are all trump quotes…
Immigrants are “poisoning the blood.”
With their “bad genes.”
“They’re not people.”
The enemy within are “vermin.”
Speaking to the Other: “You are nothing.”
And Kimmel gets kicked off the air because the said republicans are using the death of Charlie Kirk.
Yea, nothing to see here.
I see you like to take things out of context.
Prove me wrong.
Lets see – your alleged quotes are no more than 3 words long – not a single one comes close to any context,
in fact with only 3 words we have to guess what the quotes are even about
“Kimmel gets kicked off the air because the said republicans are using the death of Charlie Kirk.”
No Kimmel was kicked off the air because of a defamatory lie, and because Kimmel was trying to use the Kirk assassination against republicans.
I can guarantee you that Republicans WILL use the Kirk assassination, CNN is indicating that if the next election was tomorrow democrats would be in trouble.
Not only are they losing ground – they are losing ground with Gen Z. They are losing with GenZ because of the outreach by those like Kirk. They are also losing GenZ because large numbers of GenZ voters are deeply offended by the Dem response. By remarks such as Kimmels.
Democrats still have the majority of GenZ voters – but a group that they normally dominate has shifted dramatically to the right in the last 3 elections and is continuing to shift – both before and after the Kirk Assassination.
Nationwide in the past year – Republicans have gained and Democrats have lost voters to the tune of about 3M voters.
This is especially a problem in the so called Blue wall states – that have been purple in the past but vote Blue in presidential elections – now they are voting Red in presidential elections and shifting – like Ohio did previously from Purple to red.
It is too far from the 2026 election to make predictions – and the party that does not hold the white house historically does well but nothing has been going well for Dems in the past 9 months.
The next real test is upcoming VA elections – Prior to Kirk’s assassination these were supposed to be a D win. We do not have post assassination polling for VA – but the indications are that atleast for the near future the Kirk Assassination is going to cost Democrats at the polls. VA will be an indicator.
Even a narrow D win is a bad sign for Dems.
Absolutely positively Republicans are going to use the Kirk Assassination against Dems.
As they should.
The question is How ?
When Drug addict life long criminal and sad sack George Floyd killed himself by eating his Drug Stash – the left made him a Cause Celleb and rioted all over the country.
Thus far the Republican response has been to Morn Kirks murder, to come out to support his family and widow, to remember him – all entirely peacefull acts.
Democrats on the other hand have behaved abysmally – they have tried to disrupt funeralls and memorials – a heavily armed person claiming to be security tried to get into Kirks Funeral – with Vance and Trump both present.
Very large numbers of left wing nuts have behaved abysmally on social media – saying vile and hateful things, and many of them have been Fired for it – Most often by they slightly less wing nut left wing employers – Colleges and public schools mostly.
To this point “MAGA” has mourned and been peaceful – unlike Democrats both now and in the past.
But mourning and being peaceful does not mean there will be no consequences or that they are not incredible angry – just not violent like those on the left.
But that does NOT mean there will be no consequences.
Dear Anonymous from the Dakside.. anybody can cut and paste words into new context as you have done.. CNN does trhis all the time.. taking some words and creating new sentences with them. or taking sentences out of the context iin which they were originally used and plopping them into your own context. Congratulations! ..you have reached the same low as CNN in creating your Fake News above. ‘Yea, nothing to see here.’.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1DPplxqavkY
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ItA5C5naezo
I don’t understand why anyone here is wasting time responding to “Anonymous.” Any parent or grandparent will tell you that it is impossible to win an argument with a four-year old, especially one hiding behind an “Anonymous” mask.
Not only that Jack, but that person might be dangerous! Bona-fide loons.
Joe Biden pressured YouTube to censor Covid information that didn’t fit the government (a/k/a Big Brother) narrative. YouTube caved.
https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/google-admits-to-congress-the-biden-administration-pressed-youtube-to-censor-covid-misinformation/?cfp
That’s classic fascist behavior. Whenever the left calls a conservative “fascist” they’ve got three fingers pointing back at themselves.
Go fascist yourself.
A bit of humor – Why can’t Colbert or Kimmel be funny ?
Nice, JS. Never heard of it before, but after a couple episodes, I’m a fan.
OMG… Funny as can be with a bit of truth. Great one John
Dynamite!
Man-OH-man, we’ve got the funny.
Thanks for posting this, John Say.
Presumably, after this wretched exhibition and abject collapse by Michael Klarman, matriculation at Harvard will rationally vaporize.
BAN FOR LIFE!
Well it took me some time to get to and view the debate.Nothing like changing the whole concept of the debate at the last second.
I have to congratulate the PROFESSOR for maintaining his demeanor and coolness.
I think that Prof Klarman was on the verge of histrionics and almost to the point of a flight of ideas. I think he could have done better in his presentation if he had stuck to the original premise of the debate. If he had done that he might have been able to score points by going into depth about supposed constitutional crisis but instead pointed toward a list of every point of what he hated about Trump and his administration. His ability to explains himself suffered immensely because he simply never settled down enough to intelligently argue his point and the legal standing and precedent that would support his contentions. He was quite poor in listing and arguing the legal basis of of his views. I really was disappointed in his performance. It was like he was reading a précis of everything that the NY TYimes likes to accuse Trump of doing and just let it hang there.
Professor Turley, on the other hand, stuck to the subject and was composed and cool and was able to cite history and previous precedents although he did start to raise his voice somewhat. He very well refuted much of what Pro Klarman was pushing as an an indictment of Trump when many presidents did things with little to no constructional basis
For a legal historian Prof Klarman was incomplete, scattered, full of assumptions. Kind of condescending.
GED
Plus Prof Klarman knowledge of history seems to be quit lacking.
Just all emotions.
Dustoff. For a historian, he seems to have missed he History Rack at the Library and wondered into victim studies and loss
Perhaps klarmans wife is being held hostage? Seriously…