什么是宪法危机？我们如何知道特朗普是否引发了宪法危机？
【中美创新时报2025 年 2 月 27 日编译讯】（记者温友平编译）特朗普总统上任以来的激进行动引起了一些法律专家和总统批评者的担忧，他们认为他公然无视宪法，一些人认为该国正处于宪法危机的边缘，甚至已经面临。“恐吓”还是紧急情况？随着特朗普行使行政权力，以下是有关宪法危机的知识。对此，《波士顿环球报》记者Anjali Huynh 作了下述报道。
许多学者表示，特朗普试图通过大量行政命令来颠覆联邦政策，这已经超越了他的宪法权力。共和党控制的国会两院都遵循了特朗普的砍伐和烧毁方式，这加剧了人们对宪法制衡体系是否有效的担忧。
特朗普解雇了行政部门机构的监督人员和国会设立的独立团体的负责人。他正面临法庭斗争，因为他挑战了宪法保护，包括无证移民或临时身份移民子女的出生公民权。他似乎规避了一些法庭判决，比如支持 TikTok 销售或禁令法的判决。
副总统 JD Vance 本月似乎支持进一步扩大行政部门的权力，称他认为法院在阻止特朗普的一系列行动方面越权了。
“如果法官试图告诉将军如何进行军事行动，那将是非法的。如果法官试图指挥司法部长如何使用她作为检察官的自由裁量权，那也是非法的，”Vance 在 X 上写道。“法官无权控制行政部门的合法权力。”
虽然法律专家对宪法危机的定义没有一致意见，但他们确实认为宪法危机会具有某些基本特征。
当联邦政府的三个部门之一（司法、行政和立法部门）超越宪法赋予的权力并侵犯其他部门的权力时，就会发生宪法危机。这通常是通过藐视法院裁决或法律而发生的，而其他部门的反击有限。
简而言之，当“危机无法通过法治解决”时，就会发生宪法危机，波士顿大学法学教授兼总统历史学家杰德·舒格曼说。他指出，危机也可能源于联邦政府和各州之间的争端。
美国经历过几次宪法危机，并幸存了下来。
例如，1832 年，安德鲁·杰克逊总统无视最高法院的一项裁决，即佐治亚州不能夺取切诺基族的土地。杰克逊无视这项裁决，最终迫使数千名美洲原住民向西迁移，这条路后来被称为“血泪之路”。
另一个例子是，南方各州拒绝废除公立学校的种族隔离政策，尽管最高法院在布朗诉教育委员会案中做出裁决，要求他们废除种族隔离政策。这促使艾森豪威尔总统派遣联邦军队前往阿肯色州小石城执行法律。
学者们对政府冲突在什么情况下会演变为宪法危机意见不一。一些人认为，例如，当行政部门无视国会制定的法律时，就会引发宪法危机，而另一些人则认为，总统也需要无视法院裁决。他们说，宪法危机不会一蹴而就。相反，宪法危机存在于一个范围内，可以分阶段出现，并有可能变得更糟。
我们现在处于宪法危机中吗？
这完全取决于你问谁。
许多研究宪法的专家说，我们正处于宪法危机中，尽管还处于早期阶段。周三，近 1,000 名法律学者签署了一封两党联合信，谴责特朗普的命令，并宣称“我们认为我们正处于宪法危机中”。
“我们不需要对宪法危机有一个完整的答案，就知道我们现在正处于宪法危机之中，”宾夕法尼亚大学法学教授凯特·肖说，她是这封信的签署人之一，她接受了《波士顿环球报》的采访。
肖指出，特朗普解雇了受到法律保护的政府官员，这些官员不得被随意解雇，这是总统藐视法律的几个例子之一。然而，她指出，到目前为止，特朗普还没有公开藐视法院裁决。
“我不认为我们已经到了无可挽回的地步——我也不认为这一定是二元的，”她说。“情况有多种，但我确实认为，一个政府部门大规模违法，而没有真正有意义的反击，尤其是国会的反击，这是宪法危机的根源。”
Shugerman 同样将该国目前的状态比作军事准备水平，他说：“我们刚刚从 DEFCON 5 升至 DEFCON 4，因为我们在不遵守下级法院命令时存在一些疏忽、鲁莽或蓄意行为。”例如，一名法官于周二对特朗普政府提出警告，指责其在本月早些时候下令恢复对外援助资金后仍未恢复。
然而，一些人认为，只有在总统直接无视另一个部门的情况下，宪法危机才会出现。中右翼智库曼哈顿研究所宪法研究主任伊利亚·夏皮罗表示，虽然特朗普政府一直保持着“咄咄逼人的姿态”，但围绕危机问题的炒作大多被夸大了。
“目前并没有发生灾难性的局面，”夏皮罗说。“政府正试图以比八年前更有能力的方式重组政府，重新定位我们的政治文化，而左翼精英们控制着许多机构的制高点，他们并不喜欢这种方式。”
夏皮罗承认，虽然可能存在“技术违规”，但他认为特朗普的行政命令比他上一任总统的命令更符合法律规定。
“归根结底，行政部门首脑想要控制行政部门，这不应该那么令人震惊，”他说。
白宫怎么说？
特朗普官员辩称，总统的行为属于总统权力范围，并在法庭上声称他们所挑战的法律是非法的，而不是特朗普政府的新命令。
白宫新闻秘书卡罗琳·莱维特本月表示，媒体“散布恐慌，让美国公众相信正在发生宪法危机”。莱维特声称，危机其实是在法庭上，她说“自由派法官”正在参与“阻挠行动”，以阻止特朗普的“基本行政权力”。
“我们将遵守法律和法院的规定，但我们也将继续寻求一切法律补救措施，最终推翻这些激进的禁令，确保特朗普总统的政策能够得到实施，”莱维特说。
白宫一直依赖单一行政理论，这是一种宪法理论，认为总统拥有监督行政部门的唯一权力，不受国会施加的任何限制。
波士顿大学另一位法学教授罗伯特·蔡 (Robert Tsai) 表示，特朗普正在行使“可能是历届美国总统所见过的最强有力的单一行政理论”。他说，在这一领域值得关注的一项关键诉讼是民主党总检察长挑战特朗普允许埃隆·马斯克通过政府效率部 (DOGE) 削减政府机构的资金和人员。
国会在这一切中处于什么位置？
根据宪法，三个政府部门旨在相互制衡，以防一方越权并侵犯其他部门的管辖权。在肖看来，“摆脱宪法危机最干净的办法就是国会按照宪法的要求来维护自己的权利。”
到目前为止，国会似乎无意干预。控制众议院和参议院的国会共和党人为特朗普的行为辩护，尽管总统试图行使国会传统上小心翼翼守护的权力，例如制定联邦资金水平和优先事项。
“我被问过很多次，‘你对此不感到不舒服吗？’不，我没有，”路易斯安那州共和党众议院议长迈克·约翰逊在谈到特朗普的削减开支时说。
犹他州共和党参议员约翰·柯蒂斯周日为特朗普的行为辩护，他告诉哥伦比亚广播公司他相信“这就是我们检验宪法的方式。”
与此同时，一些民主党人警告不要公开宣布特朗普的行为目前已构成危机。
“四月份问我吧，”代表马萨诸塞州第四区的众议员杰克·奥金克洛斯周一告诉《波士顿环球报》，他指出了即将到来的预算之争。“对我来说，宪法危机意味着国会放弃财政大权。”
为什么这很重要？
民主党在 2024 年总统竞选期间警告说，特朗普的第二届政府将对民主构成威胁，并指出他拒绝承认 2020 年大选的结果，并表示他“除了第一天”不会成为独裁者。特朗普上任的最初几周加剧了这种担忧。
一直跟踪美国民主状况的研究人员组织 Bright Line Watch 对政治专家和普通美国人进行了一项调查，发现两组人都认为美国民主的稳定性已降至自 2017 年开始调查以来的最低点。
新罕布什尔州达特茅斯大学政治学家、该组织负责人 Brendan Nyhan 表示，专家评级“已降至特朗普第一任期内的最低水平”，这意味着专家“认为美国民主已经严重恶化”。
他说，总统藐视法律并没有起到什么作用：“不被视为约束性约束的宪法不再是宪法。”
包括 Nyhan 在内的几位学者认为，特朗普的行为可能会对法院产生寒蝉效应，为了保持其信誉，法官“限制自己的行为，正是因为他们担心自己的决定不会被遵守。”
“我们已经看到立法机构未能履行其宪法责任，”他补充道，“如果法院也未能履行其宪法责任，我们的麻烦就更大了。”
《波士顿环球报》员工雪莱·墨菲对本报告亦有贡献。
题图：特朗普总统于 2 月 26 日在华盛顿白宫举行的内阁会议上发表讲话。Andrew Harnik/Getty
附原英文报道：
‘Fear-mongering’ or emergency? As Trump flexes executive power, here’s what to know about constitutional crises.
By Anjali Huynh Globe Staff,Updated February 27, 2025
President Trump spoke during a Cabinet meeting at the White House on Feb. 26 in Washington.Andrew Harnik/Getty
President Trump’s aggressive actions since taking office have raised concerns among some legal experts and the president’s critics that he is blatantly disregarding the Constitution, with some arguing the country is on the verge of, if not already facing, a constitutional crisis.
Many scholars say Trump has overstepped his constitutional powers as he’s sought to upend federal policy via a tsunami of executive orders. Both chambers of the Republican-controlled Congress have fallen in line with Trump’s slash-and-burn approach, which has elevated worries about whether the Constitution’s system of checks and balances is working.
Trump has fired watchdogs in executive branch agencies and heads of independent groups established by Congress. He’s facing court fights for challenging constitutional protections including birthright citizenship for children of immigrants who are undocumented or have temporary status. And he’s appeared to circumvent some court decisions, such as one upholding the TikTok sale-or-ban law.
Vice President JD Vance this month appeared to endorse further expanding the executive branch’s power, saying he believed the courts were overreaching in blocking an array of Trump’s actions.
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal,” Vance wrote on X. “Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.”
While legal experts don’t agree on a single definition for a constitutional crisis, they do believe one would feature certain fundamental characteristics.
A constitutional crisis takes place when one of the three branches of the federal government — the judiciary, the executive, and the legislative branch — exceeds its powers granted by the Constitution and encroaches on others. That typically takes place by defying court rulings or laws, with limited pushback from the other branches.
In short, a constitutional crisis arises when “you have a crisis that does not get resolved by the rule of law,” said Jed Shugerman, a Boston University law professor and presidential historian. He noted a crisis can also stem from disputes between the federal government and the states.
The United States has undergone — and survived — several constitutional crises.
In 1832, for instance, President Andrew Jackson defied a Supreme Court ruling that Georgia could not seize land belonging to Cherokee nation. Jackson ignored the ruling and ultimately forced thousands of Native Americans to move westward in what has become known as the “Trail of Tears.”
In another instance, Southern states refused to desegregate their public schools after the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision instructed them to do so. That prompted President Dwight Eisenhower to send federal troops to Little Rock, Ark., to enforce the law.
Scholars disagree on exactly at what point a government conflict becomes a constitutional crisis. Some believe it occurs when an executive disregards laws set by Congress, for example, while others think a president also needs to defy court rulings. A constitutional crisis doesn’t happen with the flip of a switch, they said. Instead, they exist on a spectrum and can come in stages, with the potential to get worse.
Are we in one now?
That depends entirely on who you ask.
Many experts who study constitutional law say yes we are — albeit, in the early stages of one. Nearly 1,000 law scholars signed onto a bipartisan letter Wednesday decrying Trump’s orders and declaring “we believe we are in a constitutional crisis.”
“We don’t need to have a fully developed answer to what a constitutional crisis is to know we are in one right now,” said Kate Shaw, University of Pennsylvania law professor, one of the letter’s signatories who spoke with the Globe.
Shaw pointed to Trump’s firing of government officials with legal protections from being dismissed at-will as one of several examples in which the president has flouted the law. She noted, however, that so far, Trump has not gone so far as to openly defy a court ruling.
“I don’t think we are beyond the point of no return — and I also don’t think it’s necessarily a binary,” she said. “There is a spectrum, but I do think that wide-scale lawbreaking by one branch of government without really meaningful pushback, in particular from Congress, is the stuff of constitutional crises.“
Shugerman similarly likened the country’s current state to levels of military readiness, saying, “We just moved up from DEFCON 5 to DEFCON 4 because we have some mix of negligence, recklessness, or deliberation in not complying with lower court orders.” For instance, a judge admonished the Trump administration on Tuesday for not resuming foreign aid funding after ordering it to do so earlier this month.
Some, however, argue a constitutional crisis arises only after a president directly ignores another branch. Ilya Shapiro, director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute, a center-right think tank, said while the Trump administration has maintained an “aggressive posture,” much of the hype around the question of a crisis has been overblown.
“There’s no cataclysmic scenario that’s going on right now,” Shapiro said. “The administration is trying to, with more competence than eight years ago, restructure government, reorient our political culture in ways that left-wing elites who control the commanding heights of many institutions don’t like.”
While there may have been “technical violations,” Shapiro acknowledged, Shapiro said he felt Trump’s executive orders were better lawyered than during his last term.
“At the end of the day, it shouldn’t be that shocking that the head of the executive branch wants to control the executive branch,” he said.
What has the White House said?
Trump officials have argued the president’s actions are within the scope of presidential power and claimed in court the laws they’ve challenged are illegal, not the Trump administration’s new orders.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said this month media outlets were “fear-mongering the American public into believing there is a constitutional crisis taking place.” Leavitt claimed a crisis was instead in the courts, where she said “liberal judges” were participating in “obstructionist efforts” to block Trump’s “basic executive authority.”
“We will comply with the law and the courts, but we will also continue to seek every legal remedy to ultimately overturn these radical injunctions and ensure President Trump’s policies can be enacted,” Leavitt said.
The White House has relied on the unitary executive theory, a constitutional law theory arguing the president has sole authority to oversee the executive branch without any limits imposed by Congress.
Robert Tsai, another Boston University law professor, said Trump is exercising “maybe the strongest form of the unitary executive theory” seen by any American president. One key lawsuit to watch in this area, he said, is Democratic attorneys general challenging Trump for allowing Elon Musk to slash funding and personnel from government agencies via the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE.
Where is Congress in all this?
Under the Constitution, the three branches of government are designed to check one another if one overreaches and infringes on the jurisdiction of others. In Shaw’s eyes, “The cleanest way out of a constitutional crisis is for Congress to assert itself as the Constitution expects it to.”
So far, Congress doesn’t seem interested in intervening. Congressional Republicans, who control the House and Senate, have defended Trump’s actions, even as the president has tried to take on powers that Congress has traditionally guarded jealously, such as setting federal funding levels and priorities.
“I’ve been asked so many times, ‘Aren’t you uncomfortable with this?’ No, I’m not,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, said of Trump’s spending cuts.
Senator John Curtis, a Utah Republican, defended Trump’s actions Sunday, telling CBS he believed “this is how we test the Constitution.”
Some Democrats, meanwhile, have cautioned against publicly declaring that Trump’s actions amount to a crisis just yet.
“Ask me in April,” Representative Jake Auchincloss, who represents Massachusetts’ Fourth District, told the Globe Monday, pointing to upcoming budget fights. “To me, what a constitutional crisis entails is if Congress cedes the power of the purse.”
Why does this matter?
Democrats warned throughout the 2024 presidential campaign that a second Trump administration would be a threat to democracy, pointing to his refusal to acknowledge the results of the 2020 election and his remarks he wouldn’t be a dictator “except for day 1.” Trump‘s early weeks in office have exacerbated those fears.
Bright Line Watch, a group of researchers that has tracked the state of American democracy, did a survey of both political experts and average Americans and found both groups felt the stability of American democracy had hit its lowest point since they began surveying in 2017.
Brendan Nyhan, a political scientist at Dartmouth University in New Hampshire and the group’s director, said expert ratings had “declined to a level below anything we saw during Trump’s first term,” meaning experts “perceive there to have been significant deterioration in American democracy already.”
He said the president defying the law has not helped: “A Constitution that’s not treated as a binding constraint is no longer a Constitution.”
Several scholars, including Nyhan, suggested Trump’s actions could have a chilling effect on the courts where, in order to maintain their credibility, judges “circumscribe what they do precisely because they fear their decision not being followed.”
“We’ve already seen the legislature fail to uphold its constitutional responsibility,” he added, “and if the courts do as well, we’re in even more trouble.”
Shelley Murphy of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
