Bush Will Not Declare Martial Law, The USA Economy Will Not Completly Collapse

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by ALightinDarkness

 

That way, every time he gets debunked he simply claims that it cant be true because martial law doesn't allow you to over-throw it.

Well, that really is the whole point isn't it? After all, martial law IS martial law.

Well seeing we are not under martial law anymore I really dont see your point. All your post regarding this have been proven to have no merit. WE ARE NOT UNDER MARTIAL LAW TODAY. CONGRESS HAS BEEN CONVENEING LEGALLY BEFORE THE CIVIL WAR, DUING THE CILVIL WAR, AFTER THE CIVIL WAR, AND TODAY. I have proven there was in fact a quorum present and the the president Also martial law cannot suspend the operations of the federal courts, because neither Congress nor the President has the power to do so. Martial Law doesnt even give them this right.

reply to post by tide88

Martial Law doesnt even give them this right.

Martial law does not give rights, it takes them.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

Martial Law doesnt even give them this right.

Martial law does not give rights, it takes them.

martial law cannot suspend the operations of the federal courts, because neither Congress nor the President has the power to do so.

reply to post by tide88

martial law cannot suspend the operations of the federal courts, because neither Congress nor the President has the power to do so.

They didn't have the power to stop the Secession either, but they still did it. They didn't have the power to do what caused the Secession either, but they still did it.

reply to post by solo1


I agree with many of the underlying themes of this post, but some of the details are sketchy.

Canadians can't own firearms?

WWII was an allied effort. Who said it wasn't? U.S. did drop a big bomb or two somewhere in the Pacific... I think I remember reading that somewhere.
And I think we had to do alot of pressuring to get the D-day operations going. I don't think Churchill liked Eisenhower's plan.

Canada does have the resources, but that's not the issue. We'll take them if we need them, don't worry!



I think the Great Lakes region already controls some of Canada, don't we? OK, try to mess with the Lakes and see who has what.

U.S. GDP: 13 trillion
Canada GDP: 1.8 trillion

We have a long way to fall before Canadians start running the show!

reply to post by jackinthebox


However the president didnt shut down the courts and the congress met under regular sessions. Yes they also met under special sessions twice. Once when the president was elected march 4, 1861-march 28 1861 and again on july 4. However they also met under the rules of the constitution and not under the presidents orders. And did a whole lot of regular business. No where does it say the president shut down congress or the supreme court.

reply to post by jackinthebox


I have never before on ATS seen a more clear case of deflection and denial. And given this board, that is saying much.

No, that would not be the point of martial law. I am beginning to wonder if you have any idea what martial law entails. What you have done is come up with some conception of what constitutes martial law and you have in your mind given it the ability to basically run the country permanently as a dictatorship, never being able to be overturned. This is not martial law anywhere but in your mind. Martial law suspends civil law and certain protections in criminal law. There are three types of law: civil law, criminal law, and constitutional law. Martial law does not suspend constitutional law by default.

As I and others have said, what you have constructed a huge begging the question fallacy. You have attributed enormous powers to martial law which never has and never been part of it, then use those powers to claim that all evidence against you couldn't be true because martial law has some sort of supreme authority over everything. Its one huge circular argument.

[edit on 21-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

reply to post by ALightinDarkness

I couldnt agree more. This topic has been debated, and as far as I am concerned resolved. I will let the people who view these post to determine for themselves. I feel as though Jack's theories have thouroughly been disproved at this point and there is no longer a need to debate this.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


You and tide88 seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what martial law actually means.

If the Russians suddenly came in, invaded and conquered, then set up a puppet state in Washington from the remnants of the original government, would you still be arguing that the Constitution was still the supreme law of the land?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by ALightinDarkness

 

You and tide88 seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what martial law actually means.

If the Russians suddenly came in, invaded and conquered, then set up a puppet state in Washington from the remnants of the original government, would you still be arguing that the Constitution was still the supreme law of the land?

That might be the worst analogy I have ever heard. Russia has nothing to do with the USA. It was never part of the Union. It has no linkage to our constituiton. It has nothing to do with our founders. You can't even compare that scenario to the one that happened during the civil war. I is obviously you who has a fundamental misunderstanding of martial law. Which by you post above more then proves it. BYE!

[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


So you think that it is impossible for some foreign power or group to clandestinely infilatrate our government to corrupt it and usurp its power then?

reply to post by jackinthebox


No, you seem to be making up your own meaning of martial law. I have no idea where you get it from, but its not he martial lawn known to actual experts in the field nor the definition of martial law in the actual evidence that has been found.

You keep offering this random example which has no actual relation to your original theory: the union was not conquered, no puppet state was set up because the original is still in place, etc, etc.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

So you think that it is impossible for some foreign power or group to clandestinely infilatrate our government to corrupt it and usurp its power then?

OFFTOPIC. This statement has nothing to do with the discussion at hand or the OP. This original discussion has also been beat into the ground. I dont think there is anything that can be brought to the table that hasnt already been brought. So I bid you farewell. I leave it up to the discresion of the individuals to make up their own minds.

reply to post by ALightinDarkness


Dictionary definition...

the law imposed upon a defeated country or occupied territory by the military forces of the occupying power.

reply to post by tide88


The point is that the Constitution is not as "all-powerful" as you seem to think. It CAN be subverted, though you seem to think that this is impossible under any circumstances. It can be subverted by domestic enemies as well as foreign ones. And I believe that it has been subverted.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by ALightinDarkness

 

Dictionary definition...

the law imposed upon a defeated country or occupied territory by the military forces of the occupying power.

Yes you are giving the broad definition of martial law, and your martial law might very well be the martial law in other countries. However martial law has a different meaning in the USA. Sometimes it's defined as merely the will of the commanding general or whatever is necessary to preserve governmental authority, it's the temporary control by military authorities of the civilian population in a particular area. Its application is generally to battle zones during war or areas of great or potentially great public disturbance in peacetime.

Americans rejected martial law in the Declaration of Independence, indicting George III for having put colonial Massachusetts under control of the British army. The U.S. Constitution limited the federal government's application of martial law by the provision in Article I, section 9, concerning the right of habeas corpus.

Per supreme court ruling: The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war


[edit on 21-7-2008 by tide88]

reply to post by tide88


Exactly my thoughts. Terms have very specific meaning within the law. For example, look up the meaning of "short" in the dictionary. Then try to tell a banker that is the only meaning of short when hes trying to short stocks. Two different meanings.

Especially in US law, where EVERYTHING is precisely defined. And that definition does not include a defacto suspension of constitutional law.

reply to post by tide88


You are applying "martial law" as being within the confines of the Constitution, without considering the possibility that it may in fact have been used to subvert the Constitution.

Was the definition you cited post-Civil War?

Originally posted by jackinthebox
reply to post by tide88

 

Was the definition you cited post-Civil War?

Well it site article one, section 8 of the constitution so that is where it originally derives from. Also if you not in art 1, sec 8 it also states that thay are allowed To constitute tribunals INFERIOR to the Supreme Court.
Therefor they would have no power over the supreme court during martial law. However I think the supreme courts ruling really defined what martial law is today and the powers it had back then. So I would say the def. predates the civil war however martial law wasnt fully defined until after.