Amanpour and Company

>>> NOW, AS WE JUST MENTIONED, ONE BY ONE, THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAS SEEN ITS EXECUTIVE ORDERS FROZEN FROM ITS CAMPAIGN TO END BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP TO THE DESTRUCTION OF USAID.

NOW A JUDGE IN RHODE ISLAND HAS BECOME THE FIRST TO DECLARE THAT THE WHITE HOUSE HAS ACTUALLY DISOBEYED A COURT ORDER WHILE VICE PRESIDENT VANCE HAS SUGGESTED THAT JUDGES DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY OVER TRUMP'S EXECUTIVE POWER.

COULD THIS SIGNAL THE START OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS?

HARVARD LAW PROFESSOR AND BLOOMBERG COLUMNIST NOAH FELDMAN JOINS WALTER ISAACSON TO BREAK IT ALL DOWN.

>> THANK YOU, PAULA.

AND NOAH FELDMAN, WELCOME TO THE SHOW.

>> THANKS FOR HAVING ME, WALTER.

>> YESTERDAY, A FEDERAL JUDGE SAID THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION HAD DEFIED THE COURT'S ORDER TO RELEASE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN GRANTS THAT WERE SUPPOSED TO GO OUT.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS IS.

>> IT'S STILL NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE ADMINISTRATION WAS CONSCIOUSLY DEFYING THAT ORDER OR, AS CASUALLY DEFYING IT.

I KNOW THAT MIGHT NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT IT DOES.

SINCE 1865, NO PRESIDENT HAS REFUSED TO FOLLOW A DIRECT ORDER FROM A FEDERAL COURT.

SO IF A PRESIDENT SAYS I'M DEFYING IT, THAT PUTS US CLOSER TO WHAT YOU MIGHT CALL A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS JUST DRAGGING ITS FEET AND GOES INTO COURT AND SAYS WELL, WE THOUGHT YOU MEANT A DIFFERENT ORDER, WHICH IS WHAT THEY SAID HERE.

AND THE COURT SAID NO, I TOLD YOU TO RESTART THE FUNDING.

IF THEY SAY, AS THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO APPEAL.

WE'RE ANGRY, WE'RE GOING APPEAL.

THAT'S OKAY.

WHAT'S NOT OKAY IS TO SAY WE THE ADMINISTRATION ARE GOING TO IGNORE AN ORDER OF AN ARTICLE 3 COURT.

>> BUT LET ME READ YOU SOMETHING THAT VICE PRESIDENT J.D.

VANCE POSTED OVER THE WEEKEND, WHICH SEEMS A BIT CONCERNING.

IT WAS HE WROTE IF A JUDGE TRIED TO TELL A GENERAL HOW TO CONDUCT A LITTLETARY OPERATION, THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL.

IF A JUDGE TRIED TO COMMAND ATTORNEY GENERAL IN HOW TO USE HER DISCRETION AS A PROSECUTOR, THAT'S ALSO ILLEGAL.

JUDGES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO CONTROL THE EXECUTIVE'S LEGITIMATE POWER.

I THOUGHT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO CONTROL IT, OR IS THE WORD LEGITIMATE POWER SOMETHING I'M MISSING?

>> J.D.

VANCE IS USING WHAT LAWYERS CALL TECHNICALLY WEASEL WORDS THERE.

HE'S TRYING TO SAY SOMETHING THAT IN LITERAL LITERAL TEAMS IS SORT OF KIND OF TRUE, BUT THAT IS EXTREMELY MISLEADING IN TERMS OF THE WAY HE PHRASED IT, BECAUSE THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK, THE WAY IT DOES WORK UNDER OUR SYSTEM IS THAT IT'S UP TO THE COURTS TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS.

AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH TO EXECUTE THE LAW AS THE COURTS HAVE SAID IT IS.

SO IF THE COURT SAYS THAT THE PRESIDENT HAS EXCEEDED HIS EXECUTIVE POWER, THEN HE HAS, AND HE HAS TO STOP.

NOW, THERE IS A BODY OF LAW ABOUT WHEN THE PRESIDENT HAS EXCEEDED HIS EXECUTIVE POWER, AND IF A COURT WERE TO IGNORE THE WHOLE BODY OF LAW AND REACH A DECISION THAT CONTRADICTED IT, WE COULD SAY IN ORDINARY ENGLISH, THEY GOT IT WRONG.

BUT THE PRESIDENT WOULD STILL HAVE TO LISTEN TO THAT.

SO WHAT J.D.

VANCE IS DOING THERE IS HE'S MAKING IT SOUND AS THOUGH SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE COURTS COULD SAY YOU GOT IT WRONG.

SO WHAT YOU DID WAS ILLEGAL.

AND THAT'S NOT THE ORDINARY ENGLISH MEANING OF THE WORD ILLEGAL.

BUT TECHNICALLY, VANCE CAN SAY WELL, I'M NOT SAYING WE SHOULD DEFY THE COURT'S ORDERS, I'M SAYING THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN WRONG.

IN ORDER THE SAY THEY'RE REALLY WRONG, I USED THE WORD ILLEGAL.

SO WHAT HE IS DOING IS UNDERMINING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE PROPER SYSTEM USING WEASEL WORDS.

>> EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE COURTS I GUESS WAY BACK WHEN JUSTICE MARSHALL DID MARBURY VERSUS MADISON GOT THE POWER TO DECIDE WHAT LAWS MEAN AND WHAT THE EXECUTIVES HAVE TO DO TO ENFORCE THEM.

>> WELL, YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, WALTER, THAT THIS GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1803, AND ONE OF THE MOST FAMOUS SUPREME COURT CASES EVER, MARBURY AGAINST MADISON, AS YOU SAID, IN WHICH CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL SAID THE POWER OF THE COURTS IS THE POWER TO SAY WHAT THE LAW IS, EVEN WHEN THAT LAW CONTRADICTS THE CONSTITUTION.

AND THEN THEY WILL SAY IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S SUCH A FAMOUS CASE.

AND BY SAYING THAT THE COURTS HAVE THE POWER TO MAKE LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL, HE WAS ALSO SAYING WE THE COURTS HAVE THE FINAL WORD ON WHAT THE MEANING OF THE LAW IS.

AND EVERYONE ELSE IN THE GOVERNMENT HAS TO LISTEN TO US.

AND ALTHOUGH THERE HAVE BEEN ONE OR TWO MOMENTS IN OUR HISTORY, THE VERY EARLY PART OF OUR HISTORY WHERE PRESIDENTS WERE A LITTLE AMBIVALENT ABOUT LISTENING TO THE COURTS ABOUT THAT, IT'S BEEN VERY WELL ESTABLISHED, CERTAINLY SINCE THE END OF THE CIVIL WAR, AND IN EVEN CLEARER TERMS SINCE THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT THAT WHEN THE COURT SPEAKS, THAT'S THE LAW.

AND THE PRESIDENT HAS TO LISTEN THE SAME WAY PRESIDENT EISENHOWER DID WHEN HE LISTENED TO THE COURTS AND SENT AIRBORNE TROOPS TO LITTLE ROCK TO INTEGRATE THE SCHOOLS.

>> ONE OF THE PRESIDENTS THAT TRUMP REMINDS ME OF IS ANDREW JACKSON IN SOME WAYS.

AND, OF COURSE, ANDREW JACKSON FAMOUSLY SAID OF CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL AFTER THE SUPREME COURT HAD MADE THE DECISION ABOUT PREVENTING CHEROKEE INDIAN REMOVALS, HE SAID, WELL, JUSTICE MARSHALL HAS MADE HIS DECISION.

NOW LET HIM ENFORCE IT.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF THE COURTS GET DEFIED?

HOW DO THEY ENFORCE IT?

>> I WILL SAY LIKE YOU, I WAS RAISED ON THAT STORY.

THERE IS NOW SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER HE ACTUALLY SAID THAT.

BUT THE IDEA IS CONSISTENT NO MATTER WHAT.

THE IDEA IS THE COURTS DON'T HAVE A POLICE FORCE THAT WORKS FOR THEM.

THEY DON'T HAVE AN ARMY THAT WORKS FOR THEM.

SO IN OUR SYSTEM, THE RULE OF LAW DEPENDS ON THE PRESIDENT AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH ACTUALLY OBEYING WHAT THE COURTS SAY.

THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL FOUNDATIONAL PRINCIPLE OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER.

A AND THE JACKSON STORY IS THERE TO REMIND US IF A PRESIDENT DOESN'T DO THAT, WE DON'T HAVE A GREAT CHECK.

HISTORICALLY I WOULD HAVE SAID OH, YOU IMPEACH A PRESIDENT WHO DOESN'T LISTEN.

WE TRIED TO IMPEACH PRESIDENT TRUMP TWICE.

HE WAS IMPEACHED BOTH TIMES BUT NOT CONVICTED EITHER TIMES.

SO WE REALIZED IT'S NOT AS POWERFUL A TOOL AS THE FRAMERS WANTED IT TO BE.

SO WE NEED TO AVOID A SITUATION LIKE.

I WANT TO EMPHASIZE WE'RE NOT THERE.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT CAN'T HAPPEN, BUT NO ONE WISE WOULD PROPHESIZE ABOUT DONALD TRUMP.

BUT HE WAS PRESIDENT FOR FOUR YEARS IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

HE DID NOT DIRECTLY DEFY ANY COURT ORDERS.

SO I'M HOPEFUL THE ADMINISTRATION WON'T DO IT THIS TIME EITHER.

>> YOU WROTE THAT TRUMP NEVER REALLY DEFIED A COURT ORDER, AND YOU SAID AS YOU DID NOW, YOU'RE HOPEFUL.

WHAT MAKES YOU HOPEFUL?

>> WHAT MAKES ME HOPEFUL IS PARTLY INCENTIVES.

YOU KNOW, TRUMP APPOINTED THREE JUSTICES AT THE CURRENT SUPREME COURT, AND HE'S GOT THREE MORE WHO ARE OFTEN SYMPATHETIC TO THE CONSERVATIVE POSITION.

SO HE CAN WIN IMPORTANT CASES IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT, UNLESS HE DEFIES THE AUTHORITY OF THE JUDICIARY AS A WHOLE.

THE ONE THING ALL NINE OF THE JUSTICES HAVE IN COMMON IS THEIR IMPORTANCE, AND THEIR POWER DERIVES FROM BEING JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT.

SO IF HE FLOUTS THE JUDICIARY, HE IS FLOUTING THE JUSTICES, AND HE IS GOING TO LOSE THE SUPREME COURT.

AND THAT WOULD BE EXTREMELY UNWISE.

NOW I CAN ALMOST HEAR YOU THINKING THIS IS DONALD TRUMP.

SO WHY IS UNWISDOM A REASONABLE PREDICTOR?

AND I HEAR THAT LOUD AND CLEAR.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT IT WOULD ENMESH THE COUNTRY IN A HUGE DEBATE WHAT WOULD PROBABLY IN PRACTICE BE A RELATIVELY SMALL MATTER, NOT THAT THE CLOSURE OF USAID IS SMALL TO THOSE WHO RECEIVE THE MONEY.

BUT IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, IT'S NOT THE HUGEST PART OF THE GOVERNMENT.

AND SO TO GET INTO A FIGHT WITH THE COURTS OVER SOMETHING LIKE THAT AND TO LOSE ALL OF HIS AUTHORITY WITH RESPECT TO THE JUDICIARY, WHAT I THINK EVEN FOR DONALD TRUMP WOULD BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.

>> LET ME GET TO THE VERY SPECIFIC CASE RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE FREEZING OF FEDERAL GRANTS AND FUNDS AND THE COURT ORDERING THEM TO UNFREEZE IT AND ASK AGAIN THE QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT.

IF INDEED THEY SAY UNFREEZE THE FUNDS AND THE PRESIDENT AND HIS AGENCY HEADS DON'T SEND THE MONEY OUT, WHAT COULD HAPPEN?

I MEAN, HOW COULD THAT BE FORCED?

>> WELL, A COURT HAS A BUNCH OF TOOLS AT ITS DISPOSAL.

AND THE COURT THUS FAR USED A PRETTY GENTLE TOOL.

IT SORT OF PRODDED THE EXECUTIVE AND SAID WE TOLD YOU.

NOW DO THIS.

BUT IF THE EXECUTIVE DOESN'T LISTEN, THE COURT CAN ORDER MONETARY DAMAGES AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT.

AND IN EXTREME SITUATION, IT COULD IDENTIFY THE RELEVANT OFFICIAL AND ORDER THAT OFFICIAL INDIVIDUALLY TO CARRY OUT HIS OR HER JOB IN DISPERSING THE MONEY.

AND IF THE OFFICIAL DIDN'T DO IT, I DON'T THINK IT'S OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF POSSIBILITY THAT THE JUDICIARY COULD ISSUE AN ORDER DIRECTED AT THIS PERSON WITH THE CONSEQUENCE THE PERSON COULD BE IN CONTEMPT OF COURT IF THEY DON'T FOLLOW IT, WHICH IN THEORY COULD MEAN THAT SUCH A PERSON COULD ACTUALLY BE PUT IN JAIL OR SUBJECT TO INDIVIDUAL FINES UNTIL THEY PERFORM THEIR JOB.

I HOPE IT DOESN'T COME TO THAT.

>> LET ME READ YOU SOMETHING THAT CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS SAID A FEW WEEKS AGO IN HIS END OF YEAR REPORT.

AND HE'S GOING ABOUT THE PERSON THAT WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE WATCHING WHEN THESE CASES GET TO THE COURT WHETHER HE HAS A SENSE OF INDEPENDENCE HE SAID WITHIN THE PAST FEW YEARS ELECTED OFFICIALS FROM THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM HAVE RAISED THE SPECTER OF OPEN DISREGARD FOR OPEN COURT RULINGS.

THESE DANGEROUS SUGGESTIONS, HOWEVER SPORADIC, MUST BE SOUNDLY REJECTED.

AND NOW WE'VE HEARD IN THE PAST FEW WEEKS SOME OF THE SAME SUGGESTIONS.

DO YOU THINK CHIEF ROBERTS IS INTIMATING THAT THESE THINGS HAVE TO BE SOUNDLY REJECTED?

>> I DO.

AND THE CHIEF JUSTICE CARES A LOT ABOUT THE LEGITIMACY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE COURT AS A COURT.

AND IT'S BEEN HARD FOR HIM, BECAUSE THIS COURT IS SO POLARIZED, LIKE THE COUNTRY IS SO POLARIZED THAT IT'S UNDERMINED THE COURT'S LEGITIMACY.

THAT'S WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT WHEN HE WAKES UP IN THE MORNING AND BEFORE BEHE GOES TO BED AT NIGHT, PRESERVING THE LEGITIMACY OF THE INSTITUTION THAT HE'S IN CHARGE OF.

THAT SAID, HE HAS NOTE BEEN SHY ABOUT SPEAKING OUT.

AND HE DID IT IN THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHEN HE THOUGHT THAT TRUMP WAS QUESTIONING THE INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIARY.

AND IF NECESSARY, I THINK HE WOULD BE CONFIDENT TO DO IT AGAIN.

THERE IS AN INTERESTING QUIRK HERE WHICH IS THE SAME J.D.

VANCE, THE VICE PRESIDENT, WHO HAS BEEN MAKING THESE STATEMENTS THAT I THINK ARE IN INTENT AND EFFECT SUPPOSED TO UNDERMINE THE JUDICIARY, HE IS MARRIED TO A WOMAN WHO IS VERY BRILLIANT LAWYER WHO IS A LAW CLERK FOR THE CHIEF JUSTICE.

AND MY SENSE IS THAT VANCE IS PROBABLY SMART ENOUGH TO RUN THESE STATEMENTS BY HIS WIFE BEFORE HE MAKES THEM PUBLIC TO ASK IS THIS NARROWLY ENOUGH WITHIN THE TECHNICAL BUNDS OF WHAT IS LEGAL TO NOT, YOU KNOW, GET A REBUKE FROM THE COURT.

AND HE IS JUST INSIDE THE LINE RIGHT NOW.

BUT I THINK IF HE GOES FURTHER OR IF PRESIDENT TRUMP DOES, THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST FROM THE PAST THAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE WILL SPEAK OUT.

AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, ALL OF THE JUSTICES DO BELIEVE IN THE IMPORTANCE OF MAINTAINING THE RULE OF LAW, EVEN IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH THE DECISION OF A LOWER COURT, AND THEY MIGHT OVERTURN IT, THEY STILL THINK IT HAS TO BE FOLLOWED UNTIL IT'S OVERTURNED.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO HAVE DONE IS FIRING THE DOZENS OF PROSECUTORS THAT WORKED ON THE JANUARY 6th CASES.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE CASE INVOLVING THE INSURRECTION AT CAPITOL HILL ON JANUARY 6th.

AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS DEMANDED A LIST OF FBI AGENTS WHO WORKED ON THAT CASE.

TELL ME WHAT YOU MAKE OF THIS IN TERMS OF THE POLITICIZATION BOTH OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND THE FBI, WHICH IS A PART OF THAT DEPARTMENT.

>> IT'S BAD.

WE HAVE WORKED HARD TO MAINTAIN A TRADITION OF INDEPENDENCE IN INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION.

AND THAT MEANS THAT EMPLOYEES, ESPECIALLY CAREER EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE CAREER CIVIL SERVICE PROTECTIONS CANNOT BE RETALIATED AGAINST FOR WHOM THEY PROSECUTED, EVEN THAT PERSON WAS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR THE FORMER PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES WHO IS BACK IN OFFICE.

SO IF THOSE FOLKS WHO WERE FIRED WERE CAREER PEOPLE, CIVIL SERVANT PROTECTED, THEN THAT WAS UNLAWFUL, AND THEY WOULD HAVE A RIGHT TO BE REINSTATED PROVIDED THEY WANTED TO DO THAT.

IF THEY WERE PEOPLE WHO WERE APPOINTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOR SPECIAL PURPOSES, THEN THEY COULD BE POTENTIALLY FIRED.

BUT, AGAIN, THE KEY POINT IS THAT WE DO NOT WANT CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION OR CRIMINAL PROSECUTION TO BECOME PERSONALIZED.

I WILL SAY JUST TO BE FAIR, IF YOU ASK THE TRUMP FOLKS, WHAT THEY'LL TELL YOU IS WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DON'T WANT IT TO BE PERSONALIZED?

JOE BIDEN WAS THE PRESIDENT.

HE HAD DEFEATED PRESIDENT TRUMP IN ELECTION.

I GUESS THEY DON'T ADMIT THAT PART.

HE RAN AGAINST DONALD TRUMP IN AN ELECTION AND WAS GOING TO RUN AGAINST HIM AGAIN, AND HE WAS CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED BY THE SITTING PRESIDENT.

SO YOU, THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE ONES WHO POLITICIZED THIS.

SO YOU CAN HARDLY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE FIRING OF A FEW PEOPLE COMPARED TO THE PROSECUTION OF THE FORMER PRESIDENT.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAY, ALTHOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT POINT OF VIEW, I HEAR IT.

IT IS THE CASE THAT'S IT HARD TO MAINTAIN NONPOLITICIZATION IF YOU PROSECUTE A FORMER PRESIDENT WHO IS ALSO A CANDIDATE FOR THE PRESIDENCY.

SO IN SOME SENSE WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE AFTERMATH OF THAT DECISION TO PROSECUTE AND THERE IS SOME BLAME TO GO AROUND.

NOT WITHSTANDING THAT I STRONGLY, STRONGLY REJECT THE IDEA THAT INDIVIDUAL AGENTS OR PROSECUTORS SHOULD BE TARGETED OR FIRED.

>> BUT I MEAN, HOW DOES THAT JUSTIFY WHEN IT COMES TO THE JANUARY 6th UPRISING AND INSURRECTION THE CRIMINAL TRIALS?

IS THERE SOME ARGUMENT THAT THAT WAS A POLITICAL THING AS OPPOSE -- >> NO, NO.

I DON'T THINK THERE IS A CREDIBLE ARGUMENT.

YOU MAY HEAR IT FROM HARD-CORE TRUMP SUPPORTERS, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S CREDIBLE.

WE SAW ON TELEVISION WHAT HAPPENED ON JANUARY 6th.

THOSE TRIALS WERE PUBLIC TRIALS WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT TO BEAR, AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR WHAT FOLKS HAD DONE.

AND THOSE CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS WERE I THINK ENTIRELY LEGITIMATE AND APPROPRIATE.

AND DONALD TRUMP HAS PARDONED EFFECTIVELY ALL OF THE PEOPLE WHO WERE CRIMINALLY PROSECUTED THERE, WHICH TELLS YOU THAT HE IS THE ONE WHO IS POLITICIZING THOSE PROSECUTIONS IN RETROSPECT.

>> WE SAW A HEADLINE IN "THE NEW YORK TIMES" THIS WEEK THAT WAS SOMEWHAT TAKEN ABACK BY IT.

IT SAID "TRUMP'S ACTIONS HAVE CREATED A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, SCHOLARS SAY."

YOU'RE KIND OF INDICATING YOU DON'T THINK IT'S YET A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

TELL ME WHAT YOU THINK THE INGREDIENTS ARE FOR A REAL CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS AND HOW THAT'S BEING PLAYED OUT NOW.

>> A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS EXISTS WHEN TWO THINGS HAPPEN.

THE FIRST THING IS YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT.

THEY'RE STARING AT EACH OTHER, AND NO ONE KNOWS UNDER THE RULES OF THE GAME WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT.

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THAT A COURT ORDERS THE PRESIDENT TO DO SOMETHING.

THE PRESIDENT SAYS NO.

NOW THEY'RE STARING AT EACH OTHER, THE COURT AND THE PRESIDENT.

AND THERE IS NO WRITTEN ANSWER IN THE CONSTITUTION OF WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO RESOLVE THAT.

IT'S NOT LIKE CONGRESS CAN COME IN AS THE THIRD PLAYER AND RESOLVE IT.

WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN.

AND THE SECOND COMPONENT HAS TO BE BOTH OF THE BRANCHES STARING AT EACH OTHER ARE WILLING TO TAKE THIS ALL THE WAY TO THE END.

NEITHER IS GOING TO BLINK THE WAY, FOR EXAMPLE, RICHARD NIXON ULTIMATELY BLINKED WHEN THE COURTS REQUIRED HIM TO TURN OVER THE WATERGATE TAPES.

HE BLINKED BY HANDING OVER THE TAPES OR ALMOST ALL THE TAPES AND SUBSEQUENTLY WHEN THINGS GOT REALLY BAD, HE RESIGNED WHICH IS ANOTHER FORM OF BACKING DOWN.

SO WE DON'T HAVE THOSE TWO FACTORS RIGHT NOW.

WE COULD.

IT COULD HAPPEN.

THERE WERE MOMENTS WHEN IT SEEMED TO BE HAPPENING IN THE FIRST TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, ALTHOUGH WE GOT THROUGH THEM.

SO IT'S NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT WE COULD COME TO A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS.

BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SAVE THOSE WORDS FOR A SITUATION WHEN THINGS ARE REALLY AT THE BRINK.

BECAUSE IF WE OVERUSE THOSE WORDS, WE'RE GOING TO DILUTE THEIR MEANING.

AND WHEN WE GET A REAL CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS, AND PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE WAVING OUR ARMS AND SAYING NOW, NOW IS THE TIME EVERYONE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION, PEOPLE ARE SAYING WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

YOU'VE BEEN SAYING THERE IS A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS SINCE THE BEGINNING OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

NOTHING BAD HAS HAPPENED.

SO MAYBE YOU'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH.

THOSE ARE WORDS I THINK WORTH RESERVING FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN NEXT AND NEITHER SIDE SEEMS PREPARED TO BACK DOWN.

>> AND YOU DON'T FEEL WE'RE THERE YET?

>> WE'RE NOT THERE YET BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE OPEN DEFIANCE OF A JUDICIAL ORDER.

WE DON'T HAVE THE ADMINISTRATION REFUSING TO FOLLOW THE LAW.

WHAT WE HAVE IS THE ADMINISTRATION DOING A LOT OF THINGS OVER THE LAST THREE WEEKS THAT WERE UNLAWFUL, SOMETIMES ONLY IN THE TECHNICAL SENSE, BUT THEY WERE STILL UNLAWFUL, AND WE HAVE COURTS SAYING THAT'S UNLAWFUL.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

AND SO IF AT THE NEXT PHASE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION BASICALLY COMPLIES, REVAMPS THOSE PLANS, DOES THEM DIFFERENTLY, WE STARTS THE PAUSE THE WAY THEY'VE DONE IN THE FUNDING, THEN THERE WON'T HAVE BEEN A CRISIS.

AND I'M SURE WE'LL RUN INTO OTHER PROBLEMS.

THERE ARE PLENTY THINGS A PRESIDENT CAN DO THAT ARE LAWFUL BUT INCREDIBLY BAD AND INCREDIBLY FOOLISH, AND TRUMP HAS ALREADY DONE A FEW OF THEM, AND MY GUESS IS HE'LL DO MORE.

BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM A CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD OLD ORDINARY GOVERNANCE CRISIS WHEN THE PRESIDENT IS DOING THINGS THAT ARE BAD FOR THE COUNTRY.

>> PROFESSOR NOAH FELDMAN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR JOINING US AGAIN.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME, WALTER.