Constitutional Crisis

A constitutional crisis, in the realm of political science, is more than just a disagreement; it's a fundamental breakdown, a rupture in the fabric of governance where the established political constitution or any bedrock governing law proves utterly incapable of providing a solution. It’s when the very rules of the game, the supposed framework for resolving disputes, become the source of the insurmountable problem. Think of it as a machine designed to fix itself, suddenly grinding to a halt, its gears jammed by its own internal logic.

There are nuances to this predicament, of course. One perspective defines it as a situation where the constitution, the supposed bedrock of stability, falters dramatically in its ability to perform its core functions. The causes for such a catastrophic failure can be varied, like a constellation of potential disasters. A government might, with audacious intent, try to push through legislation that directly contravenes its own constitution. Or, perhaps more insidious, the constitution itself might be a blank page on a crucial matter, offering no guidance whatsoever for a specific, unfolding scenario. Then there's the grim reality where the constitution is perfectly clear, yet the political will to adhere to it simply evaporates, rendering it politically impotent. The very institutions of government, the supposed pillars of the state, can also crumble or simply fail to embody the principles they are meant to uphold. And, of course, officials might exploit the letter of the law, employing narrow interpretations as convenient shields to avoid confronting genuinely serious problems.

This isn't an abstract theoretical exercise. History is littered with such calamitous moments. Consider the South African Coloured vote constitutional crisis in the 1950s, a stark example of a government manipulating constitutional mechanisms to disenfranchise a population. Or the seismic tremors that led to the secession of the southern U.S. states in 1860 and 1861, a conflict born from irreconcilable constitutional interpretations. Australia’s own moment of reckoning came in 1975 with the dismissal of the Australian federal government, a dramatic intervention that shook the foundations of its parliamentary system. More recently, the 2007 Ukrainian crisis demonstrated the fragility of established order. And even in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a nation without a single codified document, issues can still escalate into what are recognized as constitutional crises, challenging its uncodified constitution.

The consequences of such crises are rarely trivial. They can range from minor disruptions, requiring careful recalibration, to events so profound they necessitate the drafting of an entirely new constitution. At their most severe, constitutional crises can bring the machinery of government to a grinding halt, leading to administrative paralysis and, ultimately, the collapse of the state itself. They can erode the political legitimacy of governing bodies, ushering in periods of democratic backsliding, or, in the most extreme cases, ignite the flames of civil war.

It's crucial to distinguish a constitutional crisis from a rebellion. A rebellion is typically initiated by political factions operating outside the established government, challenging its very sovereignty – think of a coup d'état or a revolution orchestrated by military or civilian forces. A constitutional crisis, however, stems from within the system, from the inability of the system itself to function as intended.

Due to Conflicts Between Branches of Government

The fault lines of governance often run between the different branches of government, creating fertile ground for constitutional crises. These conflicts can manifest between the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, or between central and local governments, or even among deeply entrenched factions within society itself. The crisis ignites when one or more of these parties, embroiled in a political dispute, deliberately chooses to trample over a law enshrined in the constitution, disregard an unwritten constitutional convention, or openly challenge the judicial interpretation of constitutional law or those hallowed conventions.

A historical example that illustrates this precarious dynamic is the XYZ Affair. This diplomatic incident, which involved American commissioners being bribed by French officials in an attempt to preserve peace between France and the United States, sent shockwaves through American politics. When the details were splashed across the American press, it ignited a foreign policy crisis that directly precipitated the passage of the controversial Alien and Sedition Acts. The backlash against these acts was fierce, leading to the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, which argued, quite forcefully, that the acts violated fundamental freedoms and urged states to resist their enforcement, claiming they were a direct assault on the Constitution itself.

Due to Constitutional Ambiguity

Sometimes, the crisis isn't born from deliberate defiance but from the inherent murkiness of the constitution itself. When a constitution is riddled with legal ambiguity, the resolution of a resulting crisis often sets a vital precedent, a guiding star for navigating similar storms in the future. The succession of John Tyler to the U.S. presidency in 1841 is a prime illustration. Upon the death of President William Henry Harrison, the Constitution offered no clear directive on whether Tyler should merely act as president or fully assume the office. Tyler, with unwavering conviction, insisted on the latter, establishing the precedent that a successor ascends to the presidency without any limitations. This crucial clarification, though initially contested, eventually became codified, demonstrating how ambiguity, when confronted, can forge stronger constitutional clarity.

Africa

Democratic Republic of the Congo

The tumultuous early days of the Democratic Republic of the Congo were marked by profound constitutional upheaval. In September 1960, a power struggle erupted between President Joseph Kasavubu and Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba, with each attempting to dismiss the other. This internal chaos created a vacuum, which was then exploited by General Mobutu Sese Seko. Mobutu orchestrated a coup later that month, deposing both leaders and subsequently restoring Kasavubu to the presidency. This period, known as the Congo Crisis, was a stark demonstration of how internal constitutional disputes could destabilize a nascent nation and invite external intervention.

Egypt

Egypt's journey through constitutional challenges has been dramatic. A significant crisis unfolded following the Egyptian Revolution, which saw the removal of long-time President Hosni Mubarak. The nation found itself without a leader until the election of President Mohamed Morsi. However, this period of stability was short-lived. In 2013, the Egyptian Armed Forces intervened again, orchestrating a 2013 coup d'etat that led to Morsi's arrest and another period of presidential uncertainty, eventually culminating in the rise of President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi. This cycle highlights the precarious nature of constitutional order in times of rapid political transition.

Malawi

In 2012, Malawi found itself grappling with a constitutional crisis concerning the succession of President Bingu wa Mutharika. The complication arose from the fact that the President and the Vice-President hailed from different political parties, leading to protracted deliberations over who held the legitimate claim to the presidency. This uncertainty, known as the Malawian Constitutional Crisis of 2012, was eventually resolved when Vice-President Joyce Banda succeeded wa Mutharika, but it underscored the potential for constitutional ambiguity to create significant political instability.

Gambia

The aftermath of the 2016 presidential election in The Gambia plunged the nation into a serious constitutional crisis. The defeated incumbent, President Yahya Jammeh, refused to accept the results and, crucially, refused to step down. His defiant stance escalated on January 17, 2017, when he declared a 90-day state of emergency, a transparent attempt to cling to power beyond his mandate. The situation reached a boiling point as Senegalese, Ghanaian, and Nigerian forces, part of a regional intervention, entered the Gambia on January 19 to enforce the election outcome. Finally, on January 21, Jammeh relented, stepping down and departing the country, averting a wider conflict.

Rhodesia

During the period leading up to its independence, Rhodesia faced a significant constitutional challenge. Demands from British politicians insisted on enfranchising the black majority population as a condition for independence. However, the white minority government, under the leadership of Ian Smith, opted for a radical path, unilaterally declaring independence in 1965. The UK government vehemently rejected this declaration, maintaining its claim of sovereignty over Rhodesia. The impasse persisted until 1979, when the Lancaster House Agreement provided a framework for independence and, crucially, the enfranchisement of the black majority.

Somalia

Somalia has been mired in an ongoing constitutional crisis since April 30, 2024. The catalyst was the act of Somali President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud unilaterally changing the Constitution of Somalia. This move was met with immediate and strong opposition from regional leaders. The President of Puntland, Said Abdullahi Deni, was the first to reject the changes, followed by the President of Jubaland. The repercussions were swift and severe: Puntland declared itself an independent state, citing Article 4 of its own constitution, and withdrew recognition of the Federal Government of Somalia. Jubaland, too, severed its ties with the central government, demonstrating how a constitutional dispute at the federal level could fracture the nation further.

South Africa

The Coloured vote constitutional crisis (1951–55) stands as a notorious chapter in South African history. The National Party government, determined to disenfranchise Coloured voters in the Cape Province, enacted the Separate Representation of Voters Act. When the Supreme Court overturned this legislation, the government's response was to attempt to circumvent the ruling by creating an ad hoc court. Even this maneuver was ultimately defeated. The government, however, was relentless. It resorted to reforming the Senate through a series of legislative maneuvers, ultimately succeeding in passing the measure legally. This protracted struggle was a stark illustration of a government’s willingness to bend and reshape constitutional structures to achieve its discriminatory objectives.

Asia

Bangladesh

The year 2024 brought a significant constitutional crisis to Bangladesh. This unfolded in the wake of the resignation and ouster of Sheikh Hasina, an event that brought an end to her 16-year rule following a widespread popular mass uprising. The immediate aftermath was characterized by intense political unrest and a deeply contested succession of power, leaving the nation in a state of constitutional uncertainty.

Georgia

The period of 2024–2025 has seen Georgia embroiled in a severe constitutional crisis. Leading up to the 2024 Georgian parliamentary election, the influence of oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili became so pervasive that he exerted de facto control over government institutions. While Ivanishvili's party, Georgian Dream, secured a majority in the election, the process was marred by widespread allegations of irregularities and suppression. President Salome Zourabichvili controversially announced that the elections would be re-run. Despite this, the newly formed parliament convened and elected Mikheil Kavelashvili as president, with opposition parties boycotting the proceedings. Zourabichvili vacated her official residence on December 29, 2024, but maintained, alongside the opposition, that she remained the legitimate president, deepening the constitutional quagmire.

Iran

A pivotal moment in Iranian constitutional history occurred in 1953. Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, the Shah, dismissed Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh, however, refused to relinquish his office, setting the stage for the 1953 Iranian coup d'état and a dramatic shift in the nation's political landscape.

Malaysia

Malaysia has experienced several significant constitutional episodes. The 1966 Sarawak constitutional crisis was sparked by dissatisfaction with the leadership of Chief Minister Stephen Kalong Ningkan, who was subsequently removed from his post by the Governor of Sarawak.

More profoundly, the 1988 Malaysian constitutional crisis stemmed from the fractious United Malays National Organisation (UMNO) party elections of 1987. This internal party conflict escalated, culminating in the suspension and eventual removal of [Lord President of the Supreme Court](/Lord_President_of_the_Supreme Court) Tun Salleh Abas from his position.

In a different vein, the 1993 amendments to the Constitution of Malaysia, viewed by some as a constitutional crisis in themselves, sought to limit the legal immunity of Malaysia's monarchs. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad successfully navigated these amendments, making the royal families more accountable for their actions.

More recently, the 2020 Malaysian constitutional crisis arose from an attempt by Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad and his allies to reconfigure the ruling coalition by bringing in opposition parties, a move that created significant political instability.

Pakistan

Pakistan's political landscape has been punctuated by constitutional clashes. In late 1997, Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif found themselves in direct conflict, with the Chief Justice accusing the Prime Minister of undermining the court's independence. The situation intensified when Ali Shah suspended a constitutional amendment designed to prevent the dismissal of the Prime Minister. Sharif, in response, urged President Farooq Leghari to appoint a new Chief Justice. Leghari's refusal led to Sharif contemplating impeachment, a move he ultimately abandoned after a warning from the armed forces. Faced with a stark choice between capitulating to Sharif or resigning, Leghari stepped down. Ali Shah followed suit shortly thereafter, solidifying Sharif's dominance.

A more recent constitutional crisis erupted in 2022 following a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Imran Khan on March 8. On April 3, the deputy speaker of the National Assembly controversially rejected the motion. Acting on the Prime Minister's advice, President Arif Alvi then dissolved the national assembly, a move constitutionally questionable given that a Prime Minister facing a no-confidence vote typically loses the authority to advise such a dissolution.

Thailand

The period of 2005–2006 was marked by a significant Thai political crisis. In March 2006, the inability to elect representatives for 60 seats in the National Assembly of Thailand led to a deadlock, with Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra refusing to resign, exacerbating the constitutional impasse.

Sri Lanka

Sri Lanka endured a significant 2018 Sri Lankan constitutional crisis. On October 26, President Maithripala Sirisena made a dramatic move, appointing former President Mahinda Rajapaksa as Prime Minister and simultaneously dismissing the incumbent, Ranil Wickremesinghe. Wickremesinghe vehemently rejected the dismissal, deeming it both unconstitutional and undemocratic, plunging the nation into a period of intense political turmoil.

Europe

Austria

In 1933, Austria experienced a peculiar event known as the self-elimination of the Austrian Parliament. All three speakers of the National Council resigned their positions. Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss seized upon this, declaring that the parliament had effectively dissolved itself and that he could now rule by decree. This development was a significant step towards the establishment of the one-party fascist state, the Federal State of Austria.

Belgium

Belgium faced the complex Royal Question concerning the status of King Leopold III. The crisis began when the King acted contrary to ministerial advice during the 1940 Nazi invasion and refused to join the government in exile. Deported to Germany before Belgium's 1944 liberation, Leopold's return was narrowly approved in a 1950 referendum. However, subsequent widespread strikes prompted him to abdicate the following year.

A more recent, though less dramatic, constitutional quandary arose in 1990. King Baudouin refused to grant routine Royal Assent to the law on abortion in Belgium. The issue was resolved through a constitutionally permissible, albeit controversial, maneuver: Baudouin was temporarily declared incapable of reigning, allowing the Council of Ministers to provide assent as stipulated in the Belgian Constitution. He was subsequently declared capable of reigning again.

Denmark

The Easter Crisis of 1920 in Denmark saw King Christian X dismiss the country's cabinet, an action that triggered significant political upheaval.

England

For events prior to the formation of the United Kingdom in 1707, the historical record of England is rich with constitutional challenges.

King John found himself facing the wrath of the barons in 1215. Their revolt against his rule culminated in the sealing of the Magna Carta. However, John almost immediately repudiated this charter, plunging the realm into the First Barons' War.

The English Reformation was another period of profound constitutional upheaval. Pope Clement VII's refusal to annul the marriage of King Henry VIII to Catherine of Aragon, a union that failed to produce a male heir, forced Henry's hand. He severed ties with papal authority in England, declaring himself Supreme Head of the Church of England. This allowed him to divorce Catherine and marry Anne Boleyn, fundamentally altering the relationship between church and state.

King Charles I's unwavering belief in the Divine Right of Kings led directly to the Wars of the Three Kingdoms. His Personal Rule from 1629 to 1640, effectively bypassing Parliament, created a constitutional deadlock that ultimately erupted into civil war.

The Glorious Revolution of 1688–89 presented a unique constitutional quandary. The flight of King James II/VII from the country left a vacuum, with no reigning monarch to convene a Parliament. The subsequent joint ascension of King William and Queen Mary occurred without a legally recognized Parliament to legitimize their irregular succession. This led to the passage of the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689 to address the constitutional anomaly.

Estonia

In the early 1930s, Estonia navigated a complex political crisis marked by constitutional reform. Two attempts at constitutional reform were rejected by the electorate. It was only through a third referendum in 1933 that a reform succeeded, transitioning the nation from a parliamentary republic to a presidential republic. However, the succeeding reform, proposed by the Vaps Movement, was thwarted. Prime Minister Konstantin Päts, with the backing of the Riigikogu, executed a self-coup, preventing the Vaps from assuming power and consolidating his own authority.

France

The Brittany Affair of 1765 presented a significant challenge to royal authority in France. The king's court in Brittany refused to allow the collection of taxes to which the provincial Estates had not consented. When King Louis XV annulled the court's decree, a majority of its members resigned. The chief prosecutor, Louis-René de Caradeuc de La Chalotais, was accused of treason for writing letters denouncing the king's actions. However, a court convened to try him failed to reach a verdict due to jurisdictional disputes and weak evidence. The king's subsequent transfer of the case to his own council further fueled fears of absolutism, ultimately forcing him to release La Chalotais and yield to the provincial authorities.

A more direct confrontation occurred during the 16 May 1877 crisis. President Patrice de Mac-Mahon dismissed Prime Minister Jules Simon and appointed Albert de Broglie in his place. The National Assembly refused to recognize this new government, leading to a crisis that concluded with the dissolution of the Assembly and the subsequent 1877 French legislative election.

Germany

The Weimar Republic was plagued by a protracted crisis from 1930 to 1933. A succession of conservative chancellors, appointed by President Paul von Hindenburg, found themselves unable to secure legislative approval from the Reichstag, which was increasingly dominated by radical parties like the Nazi and Communist parties, alongside the Social Democratic Party. This legislative paralysis led these chancellors to increasingly rely on presidential decrees issued under emergency powers. This reliance on executive orders, bypassing parliamentary consensus, laid the constitutional groundwork for Adolf Hitler's eventual dictatorship.

Malta

The 1981 Maltese general election resulted in a peculiar constitutional quandary. Due to a quirk in the Single Transferable Vote system, the party that garnered more than half of the popular vote ended up with fewer than half of the seats in parliament, creating a democratic deficit and a crisis of representation.

Order of Malta

In December 2016, a crisis erupted within the sovereign Order of Malta. Matthew Festing, the Grand Master, dismissed the Order's Grand Chancellor, Albrecht von Boeselager, over allegations that Boeselager had allowed the distribution of contraceptives, a violation of Catholic Church policy. Boeselager contested the dismissal, arguing it was irregular under the Order's constitution and appealed to Pope Francis. The Pope ordered an investigation, which ultimately led to Festing's resignation. The Order subsequently elected Giacomo dalla Torre del Tempio di Sanguinetto as his successor, with a mandate to pursue constitutional reform and reinforce religious obedience.

Norway

Norway's constitutional history includes the dramatic impeachment of Prime Minister Christian August Selmer's cabinet in 1883/1884. The core of the dispute revolved around the king's right to veto changes to the constitution. This led to the establishment of an ad-hoc parliamentary practice that persisted until the constitution was formally amended in 2007. Furthermore, the dissolution of the union between Norway and Sweden in 1905 was a significant constitutional event, marking Norway's independence.

Poland

Poland's constitutional landscape has been marked by significant challenges, detailed in the article Polish constitutional crisis.

Roman Republic

The transition from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire was a period rife with constitutional breakdown, most notably illustrated by Caesar's Civil War. In 50 BC, the Roman Senate ordered the popular general and territorial governor Julius Caesar to disband his army and return to Rome after his successful campaigns in Gaul and Britain. Defying this order, Caesar famously crossed the boundary of his territory with a legion, intending to confront the government directly. The Senate, unable to muster sufficient opposition, retreated before his advance, paving the way for Caesar to establish a dictatorship that would serve as a template for the future Roman Empire.

Russia

The Russian constitutional crisis of 1993 was a particularly violent episode. President Boris Yeltsin ordered the dissolution of the Supreme Soviet when it refused to approve constitutional reforms crucial to his privatization program. The Constitutional Court declared Yeltsin's order unconstitutional. In response, parliament impeached Yeltsin and established a rival government. Yeltsin then resorted to military force, dispersing parliament and enacting a new constitution that significantly expanded presidential powers.

Scotland

Before its union with England in 1707, the Kingdom of Scotland experienced its own constitutional crises. The death of the young Queen Margaret in 1290 triggered a complex succession dispute involving thirteen claimants. The interim Guardians of Scotland sought arbitration from King Edward I of England. Edward, however, used the situation to assert his own lordship over Scotland, selecting John Balliol as king in exchange for an oath of fealty. This assertion of English control was met with fierce resistance from Scottish nobles, leading to the Wars of Scottish Independence and a decade-long vacancy of the throne.

Spain

The 2017–18 Spanish constitutional crisis centered on the Catalan government's pursuit of independence. Under President Carles Puigdemont, Catalonia held an independence referendum despite clear prohibitions from the Spanish courts. Following a declared victory in the referendum, albeit with limited participation, the Catalan government declared independence. The Spanish government responded by dissolving the Catalan government, arresting pro-independence politicians, and imposing direct rule from Madrid for over six months.

Turkey

Turkey faced a 2023 Turkish constitutional crisis, the specifics of which are detailed in the linked article.

Ukraine

Ukraine experienced a 2020-2021 Ukrainian constitutional crisis when the Constitutional Court of Ukraine ruled that significant portions of Ukraine's 2014 anti-corruption reforms were unconstitutional. This decision jeopardized the country's foreign relations and its commitment to good governance.

United Kingdom

Although the United Kingdom operates without a single, codified document, it possesses an unwritten constitution, which has nonetheless been the subject of several significant crises.

The regency crisis of 1788 arose when King George III was incapacitated by illness, preventing him from convening a new Parliament or assenting to legislation. Parliament proceeded to pass an irregular bill appointing George, Prince of Wales as regent, with the Lord Chancellor Lord Thurlow affixing the royal seal without the King's signature. This unusual precedent was repeated in 1811 when the King's illness recurred.

A protracted struggle unfolded in 1909 over the People's Budget, a proposal by Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George and President of the Board of Trade Winston Churchill that included welfare reforms funded by taxes on landowners. The House of Lords rejected this budget, leading to a two-year deadlock. The impasse was temporarily resolved after the Liberal Party won the January 1910 general election, leading to the budget's ratification. However, the fundamental conflict over the Lords' powers resurfaced when Prime Minister H. H. Asquith introduced the Parliament Act, aiming to permanently strip the House of Lords of its veto over money bills and severely curtail its power over public bills. The Lords resisted this legislation even after the December 1910 United Kingdom general election resulted in a hung parliament. Ultimately, King George V intervened, threatening to create hundreds of new peers to break the Conservative majority in the Lords and force the ratification of the Act.

The Edward VIII abdication crisis of 1936 was precipitated by King Edward VIII's desire to marry the twice-divorced Wallis Simpson. This union was deemed unacceptable by the governments of the United Kingdom and its dominions, largely due to the stance of the Church of England, of which the King was the head, which prohibited the remarriage of divorcees whose former spouses were still alive. Faced with this insurmountable obstacle, Edward chose to abdicate, and his brother ascended the throne as King George VI.

More recently, the 2019 British prorogation controversy erupted in October 2019. Prime Minister Boris Johnson's Cabinet advised Queen Elizabeth II to prorogue the British Parliament for five weeks during a period of intense debate surrounding the United Kingdom's impending withdrawal from the European Union. In a landmark unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled in R (Miller) v The Prime Minister and Cherry v Advocate General for Scotland that the prorogation was unlawful. The Court found it prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.

North America

Canada

The King–Byng affair of 1926 remains a pivotal moment in Canadian constitutional history. Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King, anticipating the defeat of his minority government on a motion of no confidence, requested Governor General Lord Byng to dissolve Parliament and call a new federal election. Byng, who harbored doubts about the legitimacy of King's government as it was not the largest party in Parliament, refused the request. Instead, Byng dismissed King and appointed the opposition leader, Arthur Meighen, as Prime Minister. This action triggered accusations from King and other prominent figures that Byng had overstepped the boundaries of his office. Meighen's government swiftly lost a vote of no confidence, leading to the 1926 Canadian federal election, which saw King return to power with a near-majority government, while Meighen lost his seat.

In 1968, the government of Lester B. Pearson faced a period of uncertainty after losing a vote on a tax bill. Confusion reigned over whether this constituted a Matter of Confidence that would compel Pearson to resign and call an election. Governor General Roland Michener eventually intervened, stating he could find no legal precedent for treating a tax bill vote as a matter of confidence. This led opposition leader Robert Stanfield to table an explicit motion of no confidence, which Pearson's government ultimately won.

Honduras

The 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis began when President Manuel Zelaya attempted to hold a referendum that was deemed unconstitutional by both the National Congress of Honduras and the Supreme Court. Acting on orders from the Supreme Court, the Honduran Armed Forces arrested President Zelaya, leading to his removal from office.

United States

The United States has a rich history of constitutional crises, often stemming from profound disagreements over the interpretation and application of its foundational law.

The Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, often seen as a precursor to the U.S. Civil War, highlighted deep sectional divides. The state of South Carolina declared the highly protective Tariff of 1828 and its 1832 revision unconstitutional and therefore null and void within its borders. South Carolina even began military preparations to resist federal enforcement. President Andrew Jackson responded by signing the Force Bill to assert federal authority, and a compromise Tariff of 1833 was eventually agreed upon, de-escalating the immediate conflict.

In 1841, the death of President William Henry Harrison thrust Vice President John Tyler into the presidency. The Constitution at the time was ambiguous on whether Tyler should fully assume the office of President or merely act as president. Tyler insisted on being recognized as President, famously returning unopened any mail addressed otherwise. Despite opposition from some Whig members of Congress, including figures like John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay, both houses of Congress passed a resolution confirming Tyler's status. This precedent was later formally enshrined in the Twenty-fifth Amendment.

The secession crisis of 1860–1861, which led to the Civil War, was fundamentally a constitutional crisis. Deep sectional divisions, particularly over the issue of slavery, culminated in the election of Abraham Lincoln. Fearing Lincoln's intention to prohibit slavery in western territories, eleven southern slaveholding states seceded from the Union, forming the Confederate States of America. Lincoln refused to recognize these secessions, ultimately leading to the conflict to restore the states to the Union by force.

The 1876 United States presidential election was marred by disputed results in three states, pitting the Republican Party (United States) against the Democratic Party (United States). An ad hoc Electoral Commission, established by Congress, ultimately voted along party lines in favor of Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes. This decision was part of a broader political compromise that included the withdrawal of federal troops from the South, effectively ending the Reconstruction era.

The assassination of James A. Garfield in July 1881, which left the President incapacitated for months, also raised constitutional questions. The Constitution offered little clarity on the process for Vice President Chester A. Arthur to assume presidential duties in cases of presidential incapacitation short of death. The cabinet ultimately decided to wait for Garfield's potential recovery, but his condition worsened, and he died in September, leading to Arthur's succession.

In the 1952 steel strike, President Harry S. Truman nationalized the nation's steel industry, citing his inherent powers to prevent a strike by the United Steelworkers that would disrupt the Korean War. This action reignited the debate over presidential authority, particularly in the context of combating the spread of communism. The Supreme Court ultimately annulled Truman's order in the landmark case of Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, ruling that presidential actions must be grounded in constitutional or legislative authority. Truman subsequently used the threat of further nationalization to pressure steel workers and management into reaching an agreement.

The Watergate scandal (1972–1974) represents a profound constitutional crisis rooted in executive abuse of power. President Richard Nixon and his administration engaged in obstruction of investigations into their political activities. Nixon resigned under threat of impeachment after the release of an audio tape revealed his personal approval of the obstruction. The scandal led to years of congressional efforts to restrain presidential authority.

More recently, actions taken by the administration of President Donald Trump in early 2025 have been characterized by some politicians and commentators as constituting a constitutional crisis. These actions have reportedly included attempts to shut down federal agencies, such as USAID, without congressional authorization, a refusal to spend appropriated funds in ways designated by Congress, and defiance of court orders.

Oceania

Australia

Australia has faced several significant constitutional challenges. The Edward VIII abdication crisis of 1936, where King Edward VIII proposed to marry Wallis Simpson, a twice-divorced woman, against the advice of his ministers, resonated in Australia as a constitutional monarchy.

The 1975 Australian constitutional crisis remains a defining moment. Prime Minister Gough Whitlam and his government were dismissed by the nation's Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, amidst a prolonged budget deadlock in Parliament. Whitlam's Labor government commanded the confidence of the lower house, the House of Representatives. However, the Australian Constitution grants the Senate equal powers to the House, except it cannot initiate or amend supply bills. The Senate's strategy was to reject or defer consideration of these bills, effectively paralyzing the government. The Constitution allows the Governor-General to dismiss a government that cannot command the confidence of Parliament and refuses to call an election. While Whitlam's government had the confidence of the House and intended to call an election, Kerr dismissed him without warning and appointed Malcolm Fraser as Prime Minister, despite Fraser's inability to command the confidence of either house. Fraser's Liberal government subsequently passed key appropriation bills, after which Kerr triggered a double dissolution of Parliament and the 1975 federal election, which Fraser won decisively.

In 2017, the eligibility of a number of Australian parliamentarians to serve in the Parliament of Australia was questioned due to actual or potential dual citizenship. This situation arose from section 44 of the Constitution of Australia, which disqualifies members of Parliament from holding allegiance to a foreign power. Several Members of Parliament resigned preemptively, while five others, including National Party leader and Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, were ruled ineligible by the High Court of Australia. This ongoing political saga was variously termed a "constitutional crisis" or the "citizenship crisis."

Fiji

The Fiji constitutional crisis of 1977 occurred when the party that won the general election failed to form a government due to internal party disputes. The Governor-General intervened by appointing a prime minister from the opposition party.

Kiribati

Kiribati experienced a 2022 Kiribati constitutional crisis, the details of which are elaborated in the linked article.

New Zealand

New Zealand, like Australia, was affected by the Edward VIII abdication crisis of 1936.

A more distinctively New Zealand crisis occurred in 1984. Prime Minister Sir Rob Muldoon refused to devalue the New Zealand dollar as instructed by the incoming Prime Minister-elect, David Lange. Muldoon's cabinet ultimately rebelled against him, forcing his compliance. This episode served as a catalyst for the passage of the Constitution Act, which patriated New Zealand's constitution from the United Kingdom.

Papua New Guinea

The Papua New Guinean constitutional crisis of 2011–2012 involved a profound disagreement across all branches of government, including the Supreme Court, regarding the legitimate Prime Minister. The central issue was the legality of Speaker of the National Parliament's dismissal of Prime Minister Michael Somare while he was hospitalized. After a ten-month standoff, the crisis was peacefully resolved through a general election.

Samoa

The April 2021 Samoan general election triggered a significant crisis marked by legal challenges and a deeply contested outcome.

Tuvalu

In 2013, Tuvalu faced a constitutional crisis when Prime Minister Willy Telavi, having lost his parliamentary majority, sought to maintain power. He delayed allowing Parliament to convene, and his ally, Speaker Kamuta Latasi, refused to allow a motion of no confidence to be tabled. The Opposition accused the government of unconstitutional actions. Governor General Sir Iakoba Italeli intervened, removing the Prime Minister from office so Parliament could elect a new leader. Telavi attempted, unsuccessfully, to have Queen of Tuvalu, Elizabeth II, dismiss the Governor General. Ultimately, Opposition Leader Enele Sopoaga was elected Prime Minister by Parliament.

South America

Chile

The 1973 Chilean coup d'état was a dramatic constitutional crisis. Citing increasing authoritarianism in Salvador Allende's government, the Supreme Court, the Comptroller General, and the Chamber of Deputies declared Allende's actions unconstitutional. The Chamber then urged the military to intervene and end the constitutional breaches. Weeks later, the military deposed Allende and abolished the constitution, ushering in a period of dictatorship.

Peru

Peru experienced a severe Peruvian Constitutional Crisis of 1992. President Alberto Fujimori, with the backing of the armed forces, dissolved Congress after it rejected his proposals for stronger action against the Shining Path and MRTA insurgent groups. Fujimori then convened a Democratic Constitutional Congress to draft a new Peruvian Constitution, ruling by decree in the interim.

Venezuela

Venezuela has been gripped by escalating crises, including the 2017 Venezuelan constitutional crisis and the Venezuelan presidential crisis. The constitutional chamber of the Supreme Tribunal of Justice ruled that the National Assembly, the country's legislature, was in contempt of the constitution due to prior rulings on improperly elected members. The chamber then asserted legislative power for itself. This move was denounced by opposition politicians and even Maduro's own Prosecutor General as a subversion of the constitutional order, leading the Tribunal to rescind its ruling the following day. President Nicolás Maduro subsequently convened a Constituent Assembly, ostensibly to draft a new constitution, but in practice, this move consolidated his authority against the National Assembly. Following a contentious presidential election in 2018, National Assembly President Juan Guaidó was recognized as interim president in opposition to Maduro, a claim he maintained through the end of 2022.