1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

USA remove power to declare martial law

Discussion in 'North American Politics' started by Brickjectivity, Mar 15, 2019.

  1. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,956
    Ratings:
    +7,152
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    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?
     
  2. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Libertarian Capitalist Atheist Bokononist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    143,139
    Ratings:
    +38,998
    Religion:
    Bokononism
    I could live with removing it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,283
    Ratings:
    +9,648
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    It should probably be something for Congress to act upon, not the President. Sort of like declaring war.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Audie

    Audie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    9,691
    Ratings:
    +4,502
    Religion:
    None
    By the time the American Congress acted, the
    emergency would be over.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    10,283
    Ratings:
    +9,648
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Sort of my point. If it is over that quickly, it isn't enough of an emergency to warrant martial law.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Audie

    Audie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    9,691
    Ratings:
    +4,502
    Religion:
    None
    Or there is nothing left. :D
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. esmith

    esmith Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    11,482
    Ratings:
    +1,465
    Religion:
    No name designated at this time.
    A Governor of a State can and has declared martial law and by doing so assigns the National Guard to maintain law and order.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  8. Earthling

    Earthling David Henson
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2005
    Messages:
    3,769
    Ratings:
    +732
    Religion:
    Bible Believer
    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.

     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,956
    Ratings:
    +7,152
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    State governors would still be able to declare martial law.
     
  10. suncowiam

    suncowiam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    5,567
    Ratings:
    +2,203
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Informative Informative x 1
  11. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,956
    Ratings:
    +7,152
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    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.

    He also puts forward that the civil war is not over slaver but over states rights. As someone who now lives in Mississippi I can tell you otherwise. As recently as the 1960s our own history books contain the same double talk about how the KKK is not meant to oppress anyone but is required to prevent chaos as a result of so many uneducated black people getting integrated into society and that is was for this reason there are curfews just for them and that if they are seen doing anything but work they are to be arrested. Bull****. The same happens in N Carolina: a terrible place to be black over most of the last century. Don't try to tell me that N Carolina was righteous and only got into the civil war for delicacy and fraternity. Everybody in this war was dirty North and South. It was a horrible thing and not about states rights. States rights was a talking point just like the conversation we are having today about the wall with Mexico.

    With the invention of better harvesting machines cotton became a cash crop, and southern businesses became dependent upon that crop. The Northern states used cotton extensively, but they opposed adding more slave states. The businesses feared losing political ground (and their businesses) if non-slave states were created, because then they could be outvoted on the issue of slavery. They started to lose their balance in Congress and the election of Lincoln clinched it. That's what the secession was about, and that's why the other states such as N Carolina got dragged in. They could claim it was about states rights all they wanted, but no. They were dirty not clean. All of the states were dirty.
     
  12. esmith

    esmith Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2010
    Messages:
    11,482
    Ratings:
    +1,465
    Religion:
    No name designated at this time.
    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?
     
  13. Audie

    Audie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    9,691
    Ratings:
    +4,502
    Religion:
    None
    Come now, what is the precise definition of
    "emergency"?

    I have seen an ad for an "emergency makeup kit".
     
  14. suncowiam

    suncowiam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    5,567
    Ratings:
    +2,203
    Should it be a single person process? Even with governors, I'm sure they're asking their own advisers and having meetings with state officials before coming to a decision. It's just not a formalized process.
     
  15. suncowiam

    suncowiam Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2014
    Messages:
    5,567
    Ratings:
    +2,203
    Yes, and that is based on the situation.

    Also, when you mentioned that congress does not act, that's actually not fair because Congress does act. They just do not agree which is a huge difference.

    Declaring an emergency unilaterally can bypass various formal steps including other branches of government. If there is a consensus of an emergency then doesn't that validate the definition a bit more?
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. averageJOE

    averageJOE zombie

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    2,349
    Ratings:
    +550
    Congress has already bypassed "martial law". Basically martial law means to use the military as police. But if you look right now, we allowed the police to act as a military. It can be argued congress declared martial law in 1981 with the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act to fight the "war on drugs". And as the years went by, with other Acts voted in, it led to a hyper militarized police force. Congress doesn't need martial law anymore. They will just use cops.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. Mindmaster

    Mindmaster Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 20, 2010
    Messages:
    4,899
    Ratings:
    +2,510
    Religion:
    Theistic Satanist
    I probably can live either way, since it's generally not popular unless there is another Ferguson going down. But, I can't even think of one time a sitting President has used that power really in my lifetime. So, that being said not much to worry about. Usually, these days governors of a state will do this if it's a large event, or city leadership on smaller scale emergencies.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Quetzal

    Quetzal A little to the left and slightly out of focus.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    8,884
    Ratings:
    +6,925
    I would be fine with it gone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    21,126
    Ratings:
    +7,682
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    It will never happen. That capability will always be here to stay.
     
  20. Brickjectivity

    Brickjectivity Suffrin' Succotash
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2012
    Messages:
    23,956
    Ratings:
    +7,152
    Religion:
    Liberal Christian almost quaker
    You can predict the future. I can do it in hindsight.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...