Question

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by RunningOnMT, Mar 31, 2009.

  1. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    I asked this question awhile back on another thread and never got an answer. I hope someone knowledgable with the constitution can answer.

    There has been a lot of talk about the possibility at some point of the constitution being suspended and the declaration of martial law.

    Does the constitution provide this vehicle for dealing with an emergency? if the constitution allows no provision for it's own temporary suspension then the act in itself is unconstitutional. Therefore martial law is illegal and should never be accepted. Am I correct?
     
  2. rockntractor

    rockntractor Former Guest

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Messages:
    259
    Location:
    okmulgee oklahoma
    i put a link in the general forum for free audio books the constitution and it's ammendments are available for free download here is the link again. i,d check for you but i am busy with Ben Franklin
    http://www.ejunto.com/index.html
     

  3. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    aw thanks tractor. I saved that link. Didn't think to go research it myself lol.
     
  4. armedandsafe

    armedandsafe Guest

    I am hoping Marlin will weigh in here.

    Martial law is fairly well explained in Milligan v. U. S. My understanding is that it does not suspend the entire Constitution and that it is not to be used nation-wide. A pretty detailed explaination is found here:

    http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

    It is a pretty scary, complicated concept. As I understand it, a military commander would have to be in cammand of a "military jurisdition" within the US, during "a time of war" within the US before he could declare martial law. Then, he and only he would be the supreme ruler of all his jurisdiction.

    This would mean that a military ommander would have to be given orders to take control of an area of the US, which strikes me as being against the Posse Comitatus law. This would also have to be during a time of declared war, within the US, which implies a civil war, rather than just a civil disturbance.

    I think I will have to make a much more detailed investigation of this subject before I go any farther in this treatise.

    I am not a lawyer and I have only a layman's understanding of the subject, so all of the above is conjecture and opinion.

    Pops
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2009
  5. muddober

    muddober Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2008
    Messages:
    1,449
    Location:
    Carson City Nevada
    Pops, do not sell yourself short, you have in my opinion a very good understanding of the Kings English and you articulate it very well. All of which is far more than I can say of a lot of lawyers and judges. Which brings me to another point. Do you know what you call most lawyers with an IQ of 80 or less?

    Your Honor
     
  6. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2008
    Messages:
    4,717
    Location:
    Akron, Ohio
    Tricky stuff pops. In a way I could understand in time of war if we had foreign invaders on our shores that a military commander has to control the battlefield...keeping civilians out of the line of fire etc. I just don't like the idea that the current occupant of the white house has this power anytime he doesn't like what citizens are doing or say as in the case of Katrina where law abiding citizens were disarmed.