Livvy Fletcher

Colgate University hosted its annual Constitution Day Debate on Sept. 18. Michael Klarman, the Charles Warren Professor of Legal History at Harvard Law School, and Jonathan Turley, the J.B. and Maurice C. Shapiro, Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University, came to Hamilton to debate the question that is currently on the minds of many Americans: Is the United States in a constitutional crisis? 

Moderated by Colgate alumnus and current A. Robert Noll Professor of Law at Cornell Law School Stephen P. Garvey, Klarman and Turley debated what constitutes a constitutional crisis, whether our country has ever been in one and whether we are in one now.

Klarman began the debate, using his studies of legal history to argue that the U.S. is in a constitutional crisis that needs to be fixed immediately. He declared that the country isn’t just in a period of democratic backsliding, but a full-on sprint toward autocracy. To support this claim, he compared the authoritarian playbook, or historical authoritarian actions, to those of President Donald Trump’s administration. 

Klarman categorized authoritarian actions into specific types of attacks: attacks on independent power centers, transparency, the electoral system, truth, public focus and opponents. He then outlined the Trump administration’s actions and the Supreme Court’s subsequent responses, which he argued have permitted unconstitutional behavior. He described administrative attacks on the electoral system, lower court judges, civil servants, universities, law firms and the media. 

“There’s a word for that,” Klarman said after listing every attack the Trump administration has taken. “That word is fascism.”

He also noted the administration’s targeting of minority groups, including transgender people and undocumented immigrants and its racist rhetoric and actions.

“Trump is trying to rewrite history,” Klarnman said. “This is not just authoritarianism. It is old-fashioned white supremacy, weaponizing the government to prosecute political adversaries.” 

Turley — who has done extensive research on constitutional law, tort law and legal theory and is currently the legal analyst for Fox News — responded, arguing that the U.S. is not in a constitutional crisis, but rather a crisis of faith and safety. 

“The crisis of faith is that we can forget what our history — our legacy — is. We’re still a lot stronger than some people might suggest,” Turley said. “The Constitution is a leap of faith, and it’s a faith in each other, more than the government. We’ve lost faith in each other. We’re just pointing fingers and saying, ‘You’re asleep. You don’t see this. Fascism is coming. Democracy is dying.’” 

Turley contended that the Constitution isn’t supposed to prevent difficult times, but rather to provide a framework for working through them. He emphasized the importance of the Constitution’s checks and balances in times of crisis, citing historical examples of presidents pushing the limits of their power. 

“Our Constitution has worked through wars, economic crises and social unrest,” Turley said. “The reason is that our Constitution was built not for good times but bad times. Indeed, it was built for times like this. In fact, it was built in a time like this.”

He challenged many of Klarman’s points, including the use of terms like “fascism” and “autocracy” to describe the current administration, suggesting that such hyperbole undermines the seriousness of the debate. He used Klarman’s example of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack not as an example of a crisis, but rather of how Congress, the courts and the Constitution worked together to rectify the problem.

Junior Fairley Olson was skeptical of Turley’s argument that the Constitution was built during an “age of rage” similar to the one we are currently in. 

“To me, it felt like Turley was trying to justify the government’s unconstitutional actions by explaining that none of this is new,” Olson said. “I am not convinced that the state of our government shouldn’t be a topic of concern simply because the United States has witnessed other moments of division and rage.”

The debate continued with both speakers highlighting different aspects of the current political climate, including the role of the media, the Supreme Court and the presidency.

Klarman argued that the Supreme Court has backed all of these issues that impact citizens dearly, such as unethical campaign finance systems, the weakening of the Voting Rights Act and the ruling on birthright citizenship and nationwide injunctions.

Turley called Klarman out for disrespecting Republican politicians, emphasizing the importance of respecting alternative views, even when one disagrees with them, and pointed to his own respect for Ruth Bader Ginsburg as an example.

“There was a time when, as law professors, we tried to teach you, first and foremost, to respect alternative views, opposing views and not to assume that they are more evil,” Turley said. “Maybe even try to understand where they’re coming from.” 

Animosity grew between Turley and Klarman throughout the audience Q&A session and the event wrapped up soon after. Turley closed by emphasizing the importance of maintaining faith in the Constitution, even in times of political crisis and he stressed that the current system is better suited to address future challenges than any other system. Meanwhile, Klarman highlighted the urgency of the crisis and the need for action.

As the debate concluded, attendees were still left to grapple with the central question: whether the country stands at the center of a constitutional crisis, or whether its foundations remain strong enough to withstand ongoing challenges.