It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 8
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


WOW! Okay here:

7. Q: Has martial law ever been declared in the U.S.?

A: Yes. President Lincoln declared it during the Civil War. but this was overruled by the Supreme Court, after the war ended, in the case of Ex Parte Mulligan (1866). Mr. Mulligan was a civilian in Indiana who was allegedly aiding the enemy, i.e., the Confederacy. He was arrested and tried by the military. The Supreme Court ruled that there was no justification for martial law since the ordinary courts had functioned throughout the Civil War, and thus Mr. Mulligan should not have been deprived of his right to habeas corpus. One of the Justices said, "No graver question was ever considered by this court, nor one which more nearly concerns the rights of the whole people . . ." It was OVERRULED therefor the president declaration of martial law ended.

Here is the link: onlinejournal.com...


[edit on 16-7-2008 by tide88]




posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:50 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 


The Supreme Court has no authority to overrule the President under martial law.



[edit on 7/16/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Just because it was declared un-Constitutional, does not mean that it was rescinded. Only the President can do that, Lincoln was shot before he could do that, and no President since then has rescinded Executive Order 1, nor has Congress convened Constitutionally since the Executive Order was issued.


Actually, anytime anything is formally declared as being unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court, it ceases to have force of law. Martial law only suspends certain citizen rights, it does not suspend judicial review. The Supreme Court has the power to give itself original jurisdiction over anything, and when it rules something is unconstitutional it is binding and becomes ineffective.



It has been insisted at the bar, that, as the original grant of jurisdiction to the Supreme and inferior courts is general, and the clause assigning original jurisdiction to the Supreme Court contains no negative or restrictive words, the power remains to the Legislature to assign original jurisdiction to that Court in other cases than those specified in the article which has been recited, provided those cases belong to the judicial power of the United States.

If it had been intended to leave it in the discretion of the Legislature to apportion the judicial power between the Supreme and inferior courts according to the will of that body, it would certainly have been useless to have proceeded further than to have defined the judicial power and the tribunals in which it should be vested. The subsequent part of the section is mere surplusage -- is entirely without meaning -- if such is to be the construction. If Congress remains at liberty to give this court appellate jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared their jurisdiction shall be original, and original jurisdiction where the Constitution has declared it shall be appellate, the distribution of jurisdiction made in the Constitution, is form without substance.

- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137

In Marbury, the court gave itself the power of judicial review - making the declaration of laws as unconstitutional have a binding impact on the entire government. It is probably the most important case about government power in United States history. A law declared unconstitutional is no longer in effect, which is why martial law is no longer in effect. The constitution - such as it is - remains in full force.

The Supreme Court routinely over-rules executive orders. There is a reason why the President never rescinds the orders after they are over-ruled - it would be pointless, as they no longer have any effect.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:26 PM
link   
[edit on 7/16/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



A law declared unconstitutional is no longer in effect, which is why martial law is no longer in effect.


Then nothing that Congress has done since the Civil War is "in effect" considering that they have not convened de jure since Executive Order 1 was issued.

EDIT to add: Which of course still leaves us under martial law, but in the hands of the Judicial instead of the Executive.




[edit on 7/16/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


The congress was reconvened on Lincoln's order in line with his constitutional authority



Section 3. He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

- Article II, Constitution, emphasis mine.

As Lincoln summoned the Congress in line with his constitutional authority to do so, everything they have done is and remains in effect. As such, they did indeed convene de jure, since they convened in accordance with the law. There is no martial law, under anyone's jurisdiction. It is a myth.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 


When they re-convened under Executive Order, they did not have the quorom to do so de jure.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


We are not under martial law. Anyway you look it. You can try your hardest to claim that we are, but we are not. I understand that you cannot stand to be proven wrong. But you. That is all.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 





You can try to make this a personal issue if you want, but it still doesn't change the facts. Refute them if you can. You know what they say about leading a horse to water. Good luck in the desert of ignorance.



EDIT to add:



[edit on 7/16/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:05 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


Convening under the constitutional authority of the President is convening de jure. There is no quorum required, as the President used his constitutionally granted authority to call the Congress. Martial law was struck down by the Supreme Court, but it was a narrow ruling because it did not strike down the President's obvious constitutional right to call congress.

As such - there is no martial law. The constitution is and has been in full effect. The congress is meeting legally, and it always has.

Of course all of this avoids the obvious question of: if the constitution is null and void why does the entire government, and the entire bar association employed in the courts, continue to act like it is (even if you don't agree with their opinion)? Why is it you can win a court case based on the constitution, or stop the government from doing something due to the constitution?

[edit on 16-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 



Why is it you can win a court case based on the constitution, or stop the government from doing something due to the constitution?


You can't. You can only sue for consideration of your civil rights, which is not the same thing actually.



There is no quorum required, as the President used his constitutionally granted authority to call the Congress.


Without the quorum, democracy and the Republic cease to exist. And again, we are left with rule by decree and martial law. Furthermore, the quorum is indeed required by law anyway.




[edit on 7/16/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 



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. So when the war ended so would martial law. Also martial law has been declared four times since. If we were under martial law (which we are not) why would you have to redeclare it.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by jackinthebox
You can't. You can only sue for consideration of your civil rights, which is not the same thing actually.


You can sue for a grievance on the grounds it violates your constitutional rights. Some of your civil rights are ALSO in the constitution, in the amendments. And people win doing this. All the time.

No, you cannot sue over something which does not effect you. Its called standing, and is a basic judicial doctrine and has been far before the constitution was invented. Standing was not usurped by the constitution. It just makes sense: you do not have the right to go around suing everyone when you are not adversely impacted. It does not mean you somehow don't have constitutionally guaranteed rights. You always have.


Originally posted by jackinthebox
Without the quorum, democracy and the Republic cease to exist. And again, we are left with rule by decree and martial law. Furthermore, the quorum is indeed required by law anyway.


The Congress has met a quorum for some time now. Lincoln called the Congress in line with his constitutional authority, they convened, and have since that time been meeting legally. Plus, every time Congress leaves town they FORMALLY AND OFFICIALLY close down and open up the session again when they leave, which is in the Congressional record, so they are not meeting under the same executive order that Lincoln used. A quorum may be required by law, but it is not when the President invokes his constitutional authority. He did, they met, they left. Executive order on convening congress closed when they formally closed the session...as they do every session and have since Congress began.

Martial law does is not in effect, and has not been since the Supreme Court struck it down. There is a reason why people keep winning court cases in the name of due process and first amendment rights...and recently second amendment rights. Because the constitution is in full effect.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:42 PM
link   
If we are no longer under martial law, then why is there so many executive orders? Answer me that!

(I love this discussion by the way, everyone is bringing their "A" game.)



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 07:54 PM
link   
reply to post by pluckynoonez
 


Because executive orders are not a sign of martial law. Executive orders are just the official mechanism by which the president issues orders - just as how the Supreme Court issues court opinions and orders the case struck down, held, etc. Executive orders only have the force of law when issued in response to legislation commanded by congress. They may be and have been challenged and struck down by the courts, or over-rode by congress through legislation. If they were martial law edicts, then neither branch could touch them. The only orders which can be issued that are not in order to carry out legislation authorized by congress are directed to compel executive agencies or officers, over which the President has complete constitutional authority.

[edit on 16-7-2008 by ALightinDarkness]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by pluckynoonez
If we are no longer under martial law, then why is there so many executive orders? Answer me that!

(I love this discussion by the way, everyone is bringing their "A" game.)


I agree there are a lot of executive orders and Bush has put a lot of them in place. I you look at his orders you could come to the conclusion that he is setting the stage for the declaration of martial law. However just because he is making it easier for the president to declare does not mean he will actually declare it or that we are currently under it. We are living in uncertain times that is for sure. I can understand why people may think that he will declare martial law. I just have a different opinion on the whole thing. I don't think there is anything sinister about it, besides trying to protect America. Everyone keeps claiming their freedoms are being taken away, yet I do not know one person who has been effected by the patriot act or any of the executive orders this president or any other president before has issued. If we are under martial law, it hasnt had any effect on any of us, and according to some we have been under it for 140+ years. And btw for all those who were all over my ass about saying marshal law "MARTIAL LAW. " Martial law" is an unfortunate term and in a sense a misnomer. It describes a suspension of ordinary law, rendered necessary by circumstances of war or rebellion. The confusion arose from the fact that the MARSHAL's COURT administered military law before the introduction of articles of war, which were in their turn merged in the Army Act. Martial law is declared illegal in time of peace. from brittanica encyclopedia

[edit on 16-7-2008 by tide88]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ALightinDarkness
 




Lincoln called the Congress in line with his constitutional authority, they convened, and have since that time been meeting legally.


When Congress convened, they did not have the required quorum, therefore it was not Constitutional. Even though the President has the right to convene both Houses, this does not circumvent the need for the required number of delegates to be present. If that were the case, then perhaps he should have just called one member from each House.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:34 PM
link   
EDITED original post.

Sorry, I'm going to wait until I have access to my materials, probably later tonight, so that I can make more detailed responses.

[edit on 7/16/0808 by jackinthebox]



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by jackinthebox
 


The constitution is the highest law in the land and supersedes all other laws. When the constitution and something else conflicts, the constitution wins. The constitution does not say a quorum is required. Therefore, it does not matter whether one existed or not.

In any case it still does not matter because Congress formally closes and reopens every session. Any thing "illegal" that Lincoln would have done (so far I have not seen any evidence of it, but I'm just going along with it for the sake of argument) is no longer in effect. If Congress has closed and re-opened just 1 time between now and then, your point is moot if you have the evidence for it. They've opened and closed hundreds if not thousands of times since then...just a brief look through the congressional record confirms it.



posted on Jul, 16 2008 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by tide88
 



star and flag, simply because you made me laugh...
..
..
..
..




top topics



 
23
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join