Today, I will be participating in a debate on the following question: “Is the U.S. Experiencing a Constitutional Crisis?” Taking the affirmative side will be Professor Daniel Farbman, the McHale Faculty Research Scholar at Boston College Law School. I will be taking the opposing side in the debate to be held in Lexington, Virginia.
I wish to thank the Steamboat Institute and our moderator, Kaylee McGhee White, for facilitating this important debate.
It will be a pleasure to return to the historic town of Lexington, one of the most beautiful areas of Virginia. Founded in 1839, VMI was described by Abraham Lincoln as “The West Point of the South.” Roughly 65% of graduates still join the United States military, and it has produced some of America’s greatest military leaders, including General George C. Marshall.
The event will be held at 7 pm at the Gillis Theater located at 500 Anderson Drive, Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA 24450. It will be streamed.
Registration is available here.
Prof. Turley, Congratulations! Prof. Farbman charged in with a ‘put up your dukes’ opening.. and.. with compassion, grace and reason (..presenting all the right facts…!) you brought enlightenment,, a Diplomatic tour de force… a Joy to watch………….. a true ‘debate..’ Appreciation for both participants. especially the ‘Victor..’ ..as much as you love Madison, this time you were pure Jefferson.
This seems like one of those “right direction/wrong direction” questions where your response can be affirmative or negative but for different reasons, particularly given that the definition of a CC is amorphous. Was Dred Scott a CC? I would say yes and think most people would. Was Wickard v. Filburn? I’d say yes, but people on the left likely wouldn’t. There have been numerous SC decisions that I think could combine to trigger a CC, as they eviscerated 10A, much like the cliched frog in the boiling pot.
I just watched it. The opponent was meek and did not call Turley out on his BS. He could have wiped the floor with Turley if he had a backbone. The fact is that we are in a constitutional crisis and it should have been easy to argue that.
.VICTORY. not due to any meekness.. but due to the Truth.. and just to prove it.. go ahead and explain your ‘constitutional crisis..’ right here.. let it rip… we’re waiting to see your troll wisdim……
Trump is eliminating agencies mandated by federal law. He is waging war against Venezuela without Congressional authorization. He is firing government employees in violation of federal law. He is trampling the 4A by arresting suspected immigrants based on race alone. He is refusing to spend money Congress has authorized. He is sending the US military to occupy US cities, and openly saying it is a war. He is using the federal government to going after his political opponents for baseless charges. He is openly censoring the US media. He is imposing tariffs on his own without Congressional approval. He is trying to gain control of parts of the Legislator and Judaical branch. He is bringing back discrimination. He is ineligible under 14AS3 for his attempted coup but was allowed to become president again.
Yes, we are in a Constitutional crisis.
Dr. Turley, thank you for taking forward the concept of civil discourse, hopefully with polite rules of the road. Your courage far exceeds mind.
1. As a fan of civil discourse, we sincerely hope today’s time is spent on an actual topic, not on a rebuttal of an initial 16 minutes of supposition propaganda filled with personal attacks and defined, categorized bigotry as “logic” arguments by a supposed Harvard Professor.
2. The most amusing interview I can remembers was Dan Rather lighting into Barbara Bush using a similar “leading question” or “complex query” in an interview which laid out in a Reductio ad Absurdum manner asserting that President George W. Bush’s military service was only AWOL using an evidentiary “signed” letter whose typeface had been created 11 years after the signature date (and stated date of receipt) presented in the evidence. Mrs. Bush’s response started with “Now Dan, . . .” and proceeded into a clear redefinition of message. Anyone who grew up in civil society immediately knew he had been schooled — maternally. He didn’t even realize it and left the stage not knowing he had been put to bed – embarrassingly – and my stomach hurt so much from laughing.
3. Point: If the logic/evidence is irrelevant and pathetic, responding with an actual logical construction focused back on the topic is usually more effective. DEFINITELY more amusing and less yielding to absurdity.
4. In any event, if a constructive discussion is not engaged, no matter how it is answered, perhaps the concept from Proverbs 26:4 – “Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him” which as evolved to the saying “Never argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level then beat you with experience” might be more appropriate.
*. Anyone on eastern time watching? 15 minutes countdown.
OT: LOOKS like Ian Roberts is in for it. Registered to vote and voted. False degrees no less.
Gun and cash? Drug buy?
I was interrupted in its viewing. It’ll be on you tube. Audio was poor.
Dear Professor – I hope you beat the livi’n bejesus out of this mountebank. Sorry for the rage.
Good luck, Professor. Hope this one is an actual debate and not just another display of hubris and regurgitated and very tired talking points on the part of your counterpart. You have the patience of a Saint, and it is appreciated.
“Hope this one is an actual debate and not just another display of hubris and regurgitated and very tired talking points on the part of your counterpart.”
Hope so too. Otherwise…
https://tenor.com/view/oh-no-space-balls-not-again-shocked-gif-13932759
I hope the fellow from Boston College, Understands what a “debate” is and uses some logic and evidence to present his position.
That dip ship from Harvard a couple of weeks ago though it was just a microphone to opine on his personal issues with Trump and other conservatives. It seemed like he actually tried to avoid the subject presented… How insulting to those who attended.
Caught only a bit, the guy from Boston wanted to talk about DJT blowing up boats and fishermen . 😏
“It’s time to stop talkin’ and start chalkin’.”
– Chick Hearn, Sportscaster
“Irreconcilable Differences”
While you are there at VMI, please visit the memorial to their renown professor of physics (then called natural philosophy) who clearly understood Newtonian mechanics as applied to artillery. This professor is best known to us today as Stonewall Jackson.
“Visit”, as in urinate on the grave of the traitor.
I never knew, is Comrade General Secretary “Crazy Abe Lincoln” buried there?
“The workingmen of Europe…consider it an earnest of the epoch to come that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through the…RECONSTRUCTION OF A SOCIAL WORLD.[B]”
– Karl Marx Letter to Abraham Lincoln, 1865
What “Constitution”?
The one the judicial branch and Supreme Court ignore and nullify?
It was good while it lasted.
71 years to be precise.
Thanks, Abe!
Dear Professor, wear your kevlar.
Your lips to God’s ears.
Person A posits that we have a Gun Crisis in the country. You see, guns were created to be used by human beings. However, a bunch of monkeys got their hands on guns. Not figurative monkeys, but real live chimpanzees and baboons. Now, bullets are going off everywhere, at random, and more and more monkeys are getting ahold of firearms. And nobody can reason with a baboon with a gun.
Oh Nay!, says the other side, Person B! There is no gun crisis. Gun rights were given to human beings, so theoretically, as long as human beings can keep and bear guns, there is no crisis.
That is how I see the question. The Constitution was created by, and meant for, a moral Christian people. However, monkeys got ahold of it, and are wreaking havoc on the country, by people who are openly trying to destroy the country. Is there a Constitutional Crisis? Well, no, because the Constitution is the Constitution, and it hasn’t changed much. It is still the law. But on the other hand, HELL YES there is a Constitutional Crisis, because we are no longer a moral, Christian people and this weapon is now in the hand of baboons.
Darwinian is correct
All death is terrible and unacceptable.
43,000 highway deaths per year.
Ban Cars!
You have a point.
Floyd: I may have missed the point on this one – is the argument presented above asserting weapons need to be taken from the hands of monkeys and be given only to the real monkeys who hold the keys to the identified monkey’s cages? Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution may need significant amounts of cannabis to comprehend such a proposal.
Close. The point is, did they have a gun crisis, or did they have a monkey crisis? Or, did the monkey problem become a gun problem? My guess is, they did not shoot the monkeys when the first couple of them swapped bananas for guns? Then, the monkeys ran wild, and now, all you have is a probable war between the monkeys and the humans. You know, this could be like the plot for a movie or something??? Planet of the Gun Monkeys, or something???
The American Founders established a nation, its laws, and its people.
Karl Marx, through “Crazy Abe” Lincoln, illicitly stole that nation, shredded its laws, and replaced its people…
at gunpoint.
Reprehensible slavery must have been abrogated by the legislation of duly elected officials, and the long-suffering abductees compassionately repatriated.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798, 1802
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof….
Well hopefully we will hear a more coherent and possibly reasoned opponent. Prof Klarman’s screech was not useful at all unless he was trying to incite the crowd. I would have expected better from an educated and “learned man” of history and the law but he sounded more like a goon on a sidewalk.
I think Professor Turley’s response was totally appropriate. Respond with reason when the opponent is unreasoned. You will win some over to your side but not all. There are many who sit on the fence but love all this country is and you will appeal to them. The greater numbers that come to our side willingly, the better.
Look at what Turning Point and Charlie Kirk accomplished. Just make sure your security is better
I watched you debate the Harvard professor who was literally running an anti-Trump, anti-Trump voter ad the whole time, screeching non-contextual ad hominem rage and calling conservatives racist, xenophobic, idiots whenever his mouth opened. You need to stop being so logical and cordial and at least share some of the RECENT ignominy of the last 10years (actually more like 20) where the Press has colluded with the Democrat party to create the rage and lies told about conservatives. From the “good people lie” to the “51 national security experts” to the “dossier lie” to the “mostly peaceful ($1Billion dollar) riot” lies. I appreciate the fact that his rage has existed since our founding BUT the last 2 decades are worthy of discussion.
Highly educated you say? That response proves otherwise. Your emotional IQ is zero.
It says nothing of the kind.
Is it a woman’s sacred duty to her God, family, and country to bear children sufficient to grow and defend the nation?
The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral.”
The population of Americans is in a “death spiral.”
The “Population Replacement” program is succeeding beyond the communist’s wildest dreams.
At 9 billion man will not become extinct although specific groups may.
Philadelphia plans to raise the Chinese flag in a bizarre celebration of communism.
Got proof?
LOOK IT UP DF! TOO LAZY?? FOX NEWS RAN AN ARTICLE!! AS well as others!!!
DF in CAPS NO LESS!
You wrote the comment without proof, therefore you are a liar.
GET a life ANON! You called me a liar without proof! DF!
Well, you are a liar, because you present no source. You made it all up. Keep raging… I win!
So everytime you post something I expect footnotes/sources/affadavid/notorized if you don’t then you are a liar AND a DF!
BOZO!! And 1 more thing GET a Life!!!
Is this proof enough?
https://www.newsweek.com/china-flag-philadelphia-city-hall-10804688
Please stop the personal attacks – it obscures the topics of civil discourse and adds no value to an intelligent exchange.
This demonstrates it is NOT a hidden secret (if it is known by international press around the world).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15146243/Philadelphia-CHINESE-flag-city-hall.html
What Kirk had stated is factually true.
https://www.newsweek.com/china-flag-philadelphia-city-hall-10804688
Excerpt from the article:
“Why It Matters
Flying the Five-Star Red Flag—the symbol of the CCP—on U.S. government property has sparked criticism that it sends a misleading message of support for a regime often at odds with American interests. Supporters say it’s in recognition of Philadelphia’s diverse immigrant communities.”
If the city of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia, want to show its recognition of the city’s diverse immigrant communities, namely its Chinese community, why not raise and fly the flag of the Republic of China aka Taiwan? Which of the two Chinas represent a democracy and the other, a repressive authoritarian regime, the Republic of China versus the People’s Republic of China?
Neville Roy Singham, is that you?
Threat to our democracy is often wielded as a catch-all for “threat to my side’s power or program,” redefining routine losses, court defeats, or policy fights as existential peril. Calling something a constitutional crisis then works as a dog whistle to flip the switch from deliberation to alarm: rally the base and donors, claim moral high ground, pre-empt nuance, delegitimize opponents as beyond the pale, and justify rule-by-exception (emergency orders, agency shortcuts, court-pressure, centralizing decisions in Washington). The point isn’t careful constitutional diagnosis; it’s to move the audience from weighing arguments to choosing teams—fast—so extraordinary measures feel necessary and normal guardrails feel optional.
You’ve been posting that same screed for months. Ggobbledygook.
Much like yours Ano.
And after months of you reading it, you’ve got no intelligible response. It’s no wonder you remain anonymous.
“It’s no wonder you remain anonymous.” … and olly is not anonymous?
You misspelled oblivious… 😁
😉
Democrats don’t believe in the Constitution. So good luck!
Anon, correct , except mockery of the Constitution.
The term crisis has many meanings. It can be a tipping point into a new state. It can be an unstable point, where pure chaos is realized, e.g. the “perfect storm.” It can be used to incite fear to the beholders to modify their behavior. Sometimes, it’s used for a cheap headline.
I guess you must take a tack on the direction this “crisis” may lead, that is, if you agree there is a crisis. As always in social systems, the generous application of history may be a winning approach. How will you navigate your “ship-in-crisis” tonight?
Somebody is milking wikipedia.