Posted on 03/13/2010 7:38:07 AM PST by 70th Division
Just wondering. Under what cercumstances can a president invoke Marshall Law. What happens under Marshall Law? Are all our rights gone? Is there a time limit? Who has to approve it?
>In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.
The Posse Comitatus Act means nothing; the US Constitution says the following: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” — the Constitution gives Congress this power already, so it is a redundant waste-of-space on our law-books.
>Since The Constitution is the limiting document upon the government, the government cannot become greater than the granting power.
Agreed. This is why it is important to eliminate the contradictions in federal-law & the US Constitution as well as the contradictions in state-law & state Constitutions.
As an example, the New Mexico State Constitution states in Art II, Sec 6:
No law shall abridge the right of the citizen
to keep and bear arms for security and
defense, for lawful hunting and recreational
use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons. No municipality
or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident
of the right to keep and bear arms. (As
amended November 2, 1971 and November
2, 1986.)
Yet the following IS a law:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll/nmsa1978/9b0/efc5/f17d/f1a5?fn=document-frame.htm&f=templates&2.0
Obviously the two are a contradiction; yet that contradiction is EXACTLY how law-enforcement can limit your rights and freedoms. Imagine if I took my .45 on campus all open carry... do you think I would be arrested? Charged with the misdemeanor that 30-7-2.4 says I would be then guilty of?
>Therefore, should the chief executive or the other branch of government or all branches together act to suspend The Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government would be cancelled and differed back to the granting power. That is the people.
I agree with that. Once the Constitutional contract is broken, the [Constitutionally] instituted government ceases to exist.
>And I’ll conclude with this statement: Martial law shall NOT be possible in this country as long as the people recognize the bill of rights as inalienable.
Which is why we MUST defend that bill of rights.
Martial.
The Posse Comitatus Act bars the President from deploying troops domestically. The PCA would have to be rescinded (temporarily or permanently) to allow for martial law to be declared.
I see no reason to believe Obama is inclined to declare martial law.
SnakeDoc
OK I should have done the WIKI thing first. He is a great quote.
“On June 15, 1995, Norman Olson, along with militia leaders from other states, testified before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Terrorism. Olson’s opening statement included the following:
One other important point needs to be made. Since The Constitution is the limiting document upon the government, the government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the servant cannot become greater than its master. Therefore, should the chief executive or the other branch of government or all branches together act to suspend The Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government would be cancelled and differed back to the granting power. That is the people. And I’ll conclude with this statement: Martial law shall NOT be possible in this country as long as the people recognize the bill of rights as inalienable.”
>>Under what cercumstances can a president invoke Marshall Law.<< Rebellion, war, etc.
>>What happens under Marshall Law?<< Dictatorship, anarchy, revolution
>>Are all our rights gone?<< Our rights are NEVER gone.
>>Is there a time limit?<< It lasts as long as the people allow it.
>>Who has to approve it?<< No one, it is imposed.
IF it is ever attempted, that day will make Gettysburg a quiet day in the country.
yep.
Thank you. It was painful.
He’s talking about “My Favorite Martian” starring Ray Walston!
“but nothing
herein shall be held to permit the carrying
of concealed weapons.”
I contend it also does not prohibit it. Even the liberals dictionary have the problem of that “shall not be infringed”.
Martial law means that the authority of civilian law and government has been suspended or severely limited and the military has assumed control. Under martial law, the military issues and enforces orders that define what civilians may do and when they may do it. Curfews and other restrictions on movement and assembly are common features of martial law, as are indefinite detentions, limits on speech and assembly, and military control of roads and other infrastructure, communications, food, and other essential supplies and services.
I think that Obama and Co. ARE ALREADY DOING IT AND NOT CALLING IT MARTIAL LAW.
The Slaughter of the Constitution taking place in the House of Representatives is totally ILLEGAL.
The takeover of the banks, GM, and Chrysler was conducted like Hugo Chavez would have done it.
The EPA is threatening to push carbon regulation regardless of the lack of law to authorize such action.
They are taking over without firing a shot.
I expect a constant barrage of illegal actions to create a political machine that cannot be voted out of office.
Such a declaration by THIS acting president would be far more dangerous to HIM than to us!!!
with this president anything can be an excuse
If they go ahead with the Slaughter Rule, that right there is martial law. They have circumvented the Constitution at that point.
My understanding of Martial law, is basically that the leader of whatever country evokes it, is temporarily revoking all constitutional and legal protections and replacing the courts and police with the military which is tasked with restoring order by whatever means they feel are necessary, shoot to kill, no warrant raids, etc.
Well, we may be getting close.....
Both presidents and state governors CAN declare a state of emergency which increases their powers.
>“but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons.”
>
>I contend it also does not prohibit it. Even the liberals dictionary have the problem of that “shall not be infringed”.
True, but by separating the carrying openly vs. concealed the State gives itself room to prosecute those with concealed weapons without infringing on the general right to keep and bear arms.
Now, I know that CCW permit holders are statistically one of the most law-abiding, if not THE most, group of people in the population. However, those that carry concealed without a license are not, and it could be argued that they are one of the statistically least law-abiding groups of the population. IOW, concealment itself makes a good license-point, IMO.
So, I have no problem at all with my State Constitution there. The state statute I linked to, however, is contrary to that Constitution... and so I _DO_ have a problem with that.
Since The Constitution is the limiting document upon the government, the government cannot become greater than the granting power. That is, the servant cannot become greater than its master. Therefore, should the chief executive or the other branch of government or all branches together act to suspend The Constitution under a rule of martial law, all power granted to government would be cancelled and differed back to the granting power. That is the people. And I'll conclude with this statement: Martial law shall NOT be possible in this country as long as the people recognize the bill of rights as inalienable.
The problem is that the Constitution specifically allows for the imposition of martial law, suspension of habeas corpus, in certain circumstances.
Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The Article of the Constitution deals with the powers of Congress, so there can be no doubt at all that Congress has the power under the Constitution to suspend habeas corpus when necessary. There might be disagreement over whether a particular suspension meets the criteria given, of course.
AFAIK, there has only been a single instance of suspension by the president. A. Lincoln during a period when Congress was out of session and there can be no doubt at all that Rebellion and/or Invasion was actually under way. Even in that case, Lincoln applied to Congress when it assembled to retroactively approve his suspension, which it did. All later Civil War suspensions were passed by Congress, not be presidential proclamation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.