In a much older case, Worcester v. Georgia (1832), a constitutional crisis that manifested itself between the President and the Supreme Court. Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that the American Indians were independent nations under the rules of the treaty and could not be forced to be removed from their tribal lands. In response to this decision, President Andrew Jackson is quoted as saying, “John Marshall has made his decision; now he should apply it! The Constitution limits the court to dealing with “cases” and “controversies.” John Jay, the first Chief Justice, demonstrated this reluctance early in the Court`s history by refusing to advise President George Washington on the constitutional implications of a proposed foreign policy decision. The Court of Justice does not deliver an opinion; On the contrary, its function is limited solely to the decision of specific cases. The European model of a Constitutional Court considers courts to be specialised rather than general, and therefore only the Constitutional Court is able to deal with constitutional disputes. Lower courts facing a constitutional dispute will refer this case to the Specialized Constitutional Court for a decision. In the context of European legal systems, specialised constitutional courts often reflect the fact that courts are generally specialised and are usually only responsible for adjudicating disputes in certain areas of law, such as labour law, administrative law, family law, etc. In a brief statement on the subject, my former boss, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, recently told the Wall Street Journal, “The president is exercising powers that don`t really belong to him.
I mean, he has to comply with subpoenas and things like that. If the president does not do so, and if no other branch reviews its resistance, it will indeed be a constitutional crisis. So there have been a lot of constitutional confrontations in the United States, but we`ve had very few constitutional crises. An operational crisis arises when existing constitutional rules are unable to face a major challenge for the nation. Whittington focuses on cases where the system cannot resolve major political disagreements. But an operational crisis can also occur when the system cannot cope with a major danger, whether the failure is caused by political conflict or not. In the years leading up to the civil war, for example, the system failed to effectively address the monstrous injustice of slavery and the political conflict it unleashed. The rhetoric of the “constitutional crisis” has become more common in recent decades, but the term remains ill-defined. As with “legal activism,” it often becomes just a way of saying that you really don`t like something someone else is doing. The important role of the Constitutional Court in defining the rights and freedoms of German citizens in the Basic Law cannot be overemphasized. Since individual citizens can access the court directly through the “constitutional complaint” procedure, German citizens can ask their Constitutional Court to directly interpret their rights in a way that citizens cannot do in a comparable democracy. As long as a private citizen first exhausts all other legal remedies against a State authority, he or she may appeal to the Constitutional Court for violation of a constitutional right guaranteed by the Basic Law.
In fact, German citizens regard the constitutional appeal procedure as a “prerogative – almost a personal right – of citizenship” (Kommers 1997, p. 14). By allowing citizens to apply directly to the Constitutional Court, the Basic Law essentially guarantees that judges protect the rights and freedoms of the people in a militant manner. Constitutional crises can arise from conflicts between different branches of government, conflicts between central and local governments, or simply conflicts between different factions within society. During government, crisis arises when one or more of the parties to a political dispute deliberately violates a law of the Constitution; or disregard an unwritten constitutional convention; or to challenge the correct and legal interpretation of violated constitutional law or ignored political custom. This was evident in the so-called XYZ affair, in which French officials were bribed by a contingent of American commissioners sent to maintain peace between the France and the United States.  The incident was published in the American press and provoked a foreign policy crisis that triggered the passage of the aliens and sedition laws. Opposition to these laws, in the form of the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions, cited as violating free speech and urging states to refuse to implement them because they violated the Constitution.  The concept of constitutional crisis is not necessarily relevant in the current circumstances.
“Crisis” refers to a well-defined moment of conflict, in this case over the content of constitutional norms. A difference between the laws of two or more jurisdictions with some connection to a case, so the outcome depends on the jurisdiction law used to resolve any contentious issue. Conflicting legal rules may come from U.S. federal law, state laws, or the laws of other countries. The workload of many Supreme Courts has increased enormously in recent years, providing significant opportunities for creative justice policy (McWhinney, 1986). .