Since its founding the USA has allowed for US presidents to declare martial law. I believe it is time to remove this provision from the constitution. What do you think?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It should probably be something for Congress to act upon, not the President. Sort of like declaring war.
By the time the American Congress acted, the
emergency would be over.
Sort of my point. If it is over that quickly, it isn't enough of an emergency to warrant martial law.
Since its founding the USA has allowed for US presidents to declare martial law. I believe it is time to remove this provision from the constitution. What do you think?
State governors would still be able to declare martial law.By the time the American Congress acted, the
emergency would be over.
A Governor of a State can and has declared martial law and by doing so assigns the National Guard to maintain law and order.
I think that the constitution is still relevant. At minute 5 of the video he says that no one owns property now due to no peace treaty or no suspension of martial law. Its a little on the ridiculous side, because people do own property buy and sell.There's so much potential for abuse in such a declaration but, honestly . . . I don't see the U.S. Constitution as a relevant document, since at the latest, 1871, and certainly not after the Patriot Act.
Who would determine if declaring martial law is a political tool or a real emergency, the person declaring martial law or the political party opposing such declaration?This isn't about precedence because we know what precedence has been set.
This is based around the idea of an emergency being used as political tool as opposed to a real emergency.
This isn't about precedence because we know what precedence has been set.
This is based around the idea of an emergency being used as political tool as opposed to a real emergency.
Who would determine if declaring martial law is a political tool or a real emergency, the person declaring martial law or the political party opposing such declaration?
Come now, what is the precise definition of
"emergency"?
I have seen an ad for an "emergency makeup kit".
I could live with removing it.
I would be fine with it gone.Since its founding the USA has allowed for US presidents to declare martial law. I believe it is time to remove this provision from the constitution. What do you think?
You can predict the future. I can do it in hindsight.It will never happen. That capability will always be here to stay.