Brian Kalt on “Constitutional Cliffhangers”
by Justin Shubow
Posted January 24, 2012, 6:39 PM
Brian Kalt is guest blogging at the Volokh Conspiracy regarding his new book Constitutional Cliffhangers. In his first post, the Michigan State University professor defines "constitutional cliffhangers" as “scenarios in which the fate of the president or presidency is in doubt as politicians, courts, and the people argue over the proper interpretation of the Constitution.” Why should we care about scenarios that many might think are bizarre and unlikely? Kalt explains:
The short answer is that crazy stuff like this happens quite often. The scenarios in my book were chosen because they haven’t happened yet, but some of them have come close. More to the point, other examples abound in American history: The Jefferson-Burr tie in the Election of 1800 is probably the first; the Harrison-Tyler “acting president” question from 1841 is probably the most significant; and the Paula Jones case is probably the most recent. The Constitution has too many wrinkles and slick spots in it for us to avoid tripping or slipping on them once in a while.
It’s worthwhile to try to identify problems before they happen, and to discuss and possibly fix them. Indeed, some of them are too obvious to ignore, yet we still manage to do so until it’s too late.