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:- 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
- Thread starter Brickjectivity
- Start date
I could live with removing it.
It should probably be something for Congress to act upon, not the President. Sort of like declaring war.
Audie
Veteran Member
Sort of my point. If it is over that quickly, it isn't enough of an emergency to warrant martial law.
Audie
Veteran Member
Earthling
David Henson
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.
State governors would still be able to declare martial law.
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.
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.
esmith
Veteran Member
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?
Audie
Veteran Member
Come now, what is the precise definition of
"emergency"?
I have seen an ad for an "emergency makeup kit".
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.
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?
averageJOE
zombie
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.
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.
I would be fine with it gone.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
It will never happen. That capability will always be here to stay.
You can predict the future. I can do it in hindsight.