Replies

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

On October 1, 2002 United States Northern Command was established to provide command and control of Department of Defense homeland defense efforts and to coordinate defense support of civil authorities.[11].

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.

>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.

Norman is wrong.

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.