In principle, not necessarily. Do the reverse, Trump orders the Court to disband, and the court operates in defiance of Trump's order. Still two rogue departments? Or just the first one, Trump?
Constitutional crises are precipitated when ONE branch steps out of bounds. What exists then is a conflict.
I think you have a resoned retort there. The problem is, the SCOTUS then orders it's Federal Marshals to take action. Then you have them trying to obey the court's orders. You also have the Executive Branch resisting. In short order you have the Secret Service, and perhaps the military in the mix. As you go through this scenario, you also have department heads and military officials having to determine if they are following the Constituion faithfully.
Lets say the SCOTUS issues some sort of decision that the President has not complied with their ruling, so he is in contempt. They order the U.S. Federal Marshals to take action against the President. What if the Secret Service refuses presidential directives and the military stands down as well?
I'm not sure if any of this is even possible, separation of powers and all, but this is the sort of extreme situation the things could escalate to IMO.
-- When you have then is total chaos. --
Maybe, maybe not. That depends on how the conflict is resolved. The country has survived many constitutional crises, some big, some small.
We know what Congress' mindset is. They don't seem to like Trump. Republicans are not in line behind him. They want him gone. Then you have the Media and their errand boys the Democrats. Who would Trump have behind him? Nobody. Any action he took could be seen by Congress as a high crime or misdemeanor. Would you then see an impeachment process?
-- Imagine Obama rounding up Conservatives or some such. --
Or being ordered to bake a cake against your religious beliefs, or participate in some sort of abortion service, or employ moral degenerates because the degeneracy has constitutional protection.
Yes, I recognize those problems, and they are worthy of consideration. I'm not sure this is the topic to address them under. I was trying to give you a circumstance that could not be ignored. While these are IMO unConstituional "problems", they don't reach up to the point of a Constitutional crisis that might actually end the nation as we know it. The Obama example was intended to reach a level where it would be impossible to ignore the actions. While these are clearly bad, they aren't at the same level. A few people here and there isn't the same as thousands or tens of thousands. I'm not trying to dimiss the importance of these things, because IMO they are agregious. They do need to be addressed. They way outside the limits.
What about all the lawbreakers in CT and NY who have refused to register their so-called assault weapons and turn in their illegal magazines? The courts will, I guarantee, uphold those laws as constitutional; and one day, SCOTUS will say that the RKBA only applies to the brownshirts. Gonna obey?
It's hard for me to address this issue, since I live in a state that makes CT & NY look tame by comparison. We can't even buy ammunition now without showing an ID. I'm not sure if a record is kept or not. There may be. You will have to guage what your thoughts are here, and extrapolate accordingly.
At the very least, the sort of extra-constitutional judgment of the courts must be subjected to ridicule, serious ridicule, to the point of labeling their decisions as illegitimate and garbage.
I agree. What's more, I believe that all Constitutional issues that come before the courts should require an automatic review by the SCOTUS. It should not have to wait for someone with half a million dollars in their pocket and a decade to spare, to get there. It should get there for free, and in weeks, not months or years..
I will also state that when new regulations are enacted within states that impact the 2nd Amendment (for instance), they should be reviewed as well.
Citizens should not have to spend a fortune and be held under the shadow of heneous laws and penalties fearing for their freedom. The SCOTUS should review and strike them down, on it's own.
I mentioned earlier that the realpolitik here is that the Congress and The Courts will work together to remove Trump. Both will impose ridiculous and even unconstitutional limits, and at some point use breach of edict as justification for impeachment.
I can even imagine a rock and a hard place scenario, where if Trump breaches an edict he is impeached for breach, and if he doesn't breach it, he is impeached for failure to take care.
I tend to look past the form and the jargon, and when I see an out of bounds branch, it offends my sensibilities. I want a remedy against the branch of government that is out of bounds.
And it shouldn't, and I'll shut up now, but it bugs me to read a defense of an indefensible institution. We have to follow the courts because they are the courts. That way lies tyranny, and we are there. And the people not only tolerate it, they defend it.