Constitutional Crisis

Our Constitution and The NFL

I keep trying to understand the balance of power as envisioned by our founders, and an NFL analogy might help. We’ll start with finding equivalents between the two institutions.

• There is the NFL Commissioner, who is similar to the POTUS in the executive branch.
• There are 32 teams - that is like states, but only 32 instead of 50
• Each team has an owner - that is like the Electors of our states who vote for the President
• There is an NFL Executive Committee - that is like our Congress
• There is the rule book - that is like our Constitution
• Referees enforce and interrupt the rules - that is like our judiciary system
• Each team has an offense and a defense - those are like our political parties
• We are the fans - we are also the voters and the ultimate judges of how the game is played

Our founders were the original team owners of our democracy. They invented the game of democracy and wrote all the original rules. They had looked at other games, efforts to have a democracy, dictatorships, and monarchies to find the best approach. They then wrote our Constitution and Bill Of Rights.

Over the centuries, as our democracy and society have evolved, we have amended the Constitution to fit the modern world. That process needs to continue today and in the future.

The NFL Executive Committee (NFLEC) includes one representative — an owner or top officer — from each of the league’s 32 clubs. Any change of game rules, league policy, club ownership, or other modifications to the game (laws) must be approved by at least three-fourths of the committee. Without consensus, nothing will pass. This is like our Congress; they only have the power to write or rewrite the laws.

The Commissioner (like the POTUS) is part of the NFLEC and has a good deal of influence on the committee's deliberations but cannot unilaterally change the game's rules. He still must answer to the owners, who can remove him by executive committee vote.

The NFLEC has to pay attention to what the fans say and want. They are the paying public (voters); without them, there is no NFL. If a team is run so poorly that it is bleeding money, it will end up on the auction block, and the ownership will change (new congresspeople and/or a new president).

The teams and players on offense and defense must abide by the rules as games are played. The referees - part of our judiciary system - ensure everyone follows the rules. If rules are broken, penalties are assessed against the violators.

If a team, or the team's coaches, player, and owners, dismissed the rulebook and did any damn thing they wanted to win games, the entirety of the NFL would break down, and chaos would ensue. It would likely spell the end of the NFL.

Teams, players, and fans sometimes decide that the existing rules must be revised. This goes to the NFLEC (like our Congress), where changes are debated, agreed upon, or dropped.

This voluntary adherence to both the rules of the game and how to change the rules is critical to the success and continuation of any enterprise. Our democracy demands that our president and elected representatives follow the rules.

History has demonstrated that this structure is the most fair and efficient way to run any institution. One thing our founders added as part of the judiciary is the SCOTUS, a supreme court with the final say in any dispute that finds its way to their court. Even the NFL settles disputes through the SCOTUS. Compliance with judicial rulings is voluntary and mandatory for the institution to survive.

The SCOTUS is not supposed to make new laws or disregard existing laws. It is supposed to interpret the actions brought before it to see if the behavior of either of the litigants violates existing law. If the NFL or either of our political parties finds fault with the decision of the judiciary, Congress (or the NFLEC) has the power to change the laws, which will again be subject to challenge through litigation and the judiciary.

What we are confronted with today, in 2025, with our 47th president, Donald Trump, is an executive who seems not to respect our Constitution or the rule of law and is dangerously close to dismissing the rulings of the courts while ruling as a monarch. If this happens, we have a constitutional crisis.

A constitutional crisis occurs when branches of government clash, potentially breaching the system of checks and balances. The U.S. Constitution serves as both a guidebook and a referee for these conflicts. Conflict is inherent to the democratic process but not necessarily a constitutional crisis.

Some argue that Trump and his interactions with Judge James Boasberg are a constitutional crisis, but legal avenues are being followed so far. The greatest concern to many is that if this or another similar case reaches the SCOTUS, and given the right-leaning tendencies of this Court, it might set a dangerous precedent relating to the monarchial powers of a president.

We are dangerously close to finding out if our democracy can withstand the assault of a president who seems to have no respect for the law, our Constitution, or frankly much of anything but his ego. He has surrounded himself with enablers who share his disdain for human rights.

By the end of 2025, I expect we will know if our democracy will survive this test. It will all depend on two things: the patriotism of our Congress to rise above political and ideological differences to preserve our democracy and the decision of our courts as these challenges move through the system.