Serious Question:Declaring Martial Law

[Horatius]

Okay, This post:

Of course, this is just fear-mongering. However if our government really wanted to exploit this scenario, and people wouldn't buy into the fear-mongering, they could just stage such an attack and blame arabs for it, then nobody would disbelieve the government again. And even if they did, it wouldn't matter as Obama would declare martial law.

...has finally broken me. Like our friend INRM, many CTists use the ">whoever< would declare martial law" notion as a key step in whatever Dastardly Plan They have cooked up. But they always just toss it off, as if "Declaring Martial Law" was as straightforward as "Declaring This The Best Pizza EVER!"

So, serious question time, for those of us with greater knowledge of US law and common practice: What would it take, in terms of legal requirements, for the President to actually declare martial law? Both in theory, and in historical practice.

 

[LightinDarkness]

Ah yes, the mythical and magical martial law: the boogie man in the darkness that CTers have promised us is always lurking right around the corner, ready to suppress us all and make us slaves of the NWO!

Not being a military expert or lawyer, I can't answer the OP but this should be a good time for our legal experts to chime in. From what I do know, it would be nearly impossible for the USA to enter into martial law en masse. Certain small areas of government may enforce martial law, in the case of riots or extreme natural disaster (like Hurricane Katrina - but even Katrina did not cause martial law), but such cases are rare and exist for very short periods of time.

 

[SpitfireIX]

So, serious question time, for those of us with greater knowledge of US law and common practice: What would it take, in terms of legal requirements, for the President to actually declare martial law? Both in theory, and in historical practice.

The Supreme Court settled this issue in 1866, in Ex Parte Milligan^WP:

Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present; the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration. [bolding mine]

 

[LashL]

There's also recourse to the Insurrection Act in certain limited circumstances.

 

[Horatius]

There's also recourse to the Insurrection Act in certain limited circumstances.

Interesting. It looks like they made some changes that would make it easier for the President to act, although still difficult, but then:

The changes described above were repealed in their entirety by HR 4986: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (full text).

All changes have been repealed, and have changed back to the original state of the Insurrection Act of 1807

So if anything, it would be harder for Obama to act under this legislation.

 

[drkitten]

Not being a military expert or lawyer, I can't answer the OP but this should be a good time for our legal experts to chime in. From what I do know, it would be nearly impossible for the USA to enter into martial law en masse.

I think the CTers point is that once the government declares "martial law," it doesn't matter what the courts say or whether the decision is retrospectively justified. If Obama decided to march troops into the Capitol building and have General Issue dictate new legislation at the barrel of a gun, that particular legislation would be passed within minutes. And the surviving members of the Supreme Court would know that only by virtue of their unanimous 3-0 decision supporting the the new legislation would they remain "surviving members of the Supreme Court."

It doesn't matter whether or not a declaration of martial law is authorized or legal, because once martial law has been declared, there is no one to whom you can complain about its illegality.

 

[JoeyDonuts]

Be careful. Some of them might have seen The Siege, and will next be blabbering on about the War Powers Act.

I also can't wait to hear Posse Comitatus brought up again.

 

[Juniversal]

Okay, This post:





...has finally broken me. Like our friend INRM, many CTists use the ">whoever< would declare martial law" notion as a key step in whatever Dastardly Plan They have cooked up. But they always just toss it off, as if "Declaring Martial Law" was as straightforward as "Declaring This The Best Pizza EVER!"

So, serious question time, for those of us with greater knowledge of US law and common practice: What would it take, in terms of legal requirements, for the President to actually declare martial law? Both in theory, and in historical practice.

Well it certainly isn't meant for any random catastrophic event as INRM seems to believe. The CT'ers seem to think it would be imployed to put the big boot on the American citizens and limit our rights. But of course that's not the case.

 

[Travis]

I don't think Martial Law can be declared preemptively. So it couldn't be the setup for anything unless the big plan is to first wait for the huge natural disaster (or foreign invasion) that devastates the entire USA and then spring the evil plan into action.

 

[Juniversal]

I don't think Martial Law can be declared preemptively. So it couldn't be the setup for anything unless the big plan is to first wait for the huge natural disaster (or foreign invasion) that devastates the entire USA and then spring the evil plan into action.

The nutters don't seem to understand that. Makes me think of the "Americas future...Christian Liberty or Martial Law" banner ad on WND. Fear mongering at its best.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

If Obama decided to march troops

This is the point at which most CT'ists fail.

 

[Thunder]

what is wrong with you guys???

didn't you know that Martial Law was declared in 1861...and has NEVER been rescinded???

 

[Thunder]

Martial Law will be declared the second a Truther finds real evidence that 9-11 was an inside job!!!!