Is Martial Law Unacceptable Regardless Of The Circumstances?

Posted by freedomforall 6 days, 15 hours ago to Philosophy
14 comments | Share | Flag

"No government, whether state or federal, supersedes the boundaries placed upon them by the constitution. Once they violate those boundaries, they must be put in check by the citizenry, for the constitution is merely an object that represents an ideal. It can't defend itself. If a government undermines constitutional protections, it is not a failure of the constitution, it is a failure by the public to act.

Sadly, there are "conservatives" out there who supported the efforts at Bundy Ranch in 2014, but are now calling for federal overreach and martial law today. The very same people who argued vehemently against unconstitutional actions back then are arguing for bending or breaking the rules of the constitution now. This is something I have been warning about for years...

The greatest threat to freedom is not the government, extreme leftists or the globalist cabal; the greatest threat is when freedom fighters foresake their own principles and start rationalizing tyranny because it happens to benefit them in the moment. If freedom fighters stop fighting for freedom, who remains pick up the mantle? No one. And thus, the globalists and collectivists win the long game.

Right now there are two sides calling for martial law-like restrictions on the public, and both sides think they are doing what is best for society at large. They both believe they are morally justified and that totalitarian actions are necessary for “the greater good”. Both sides are wrong."
SOURCE URL: http://www.alt-market.com/index.php/articles/4289-martial-law-is-unacceptable-regardless-of-the-circumstances


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by DrZarkov99 4 days, 15 hours ago
    When a local or state government ties the hands of law enforcement and allows violent anarchy to victimize the public, what actions should the citizenry take, then? Vigliantism or untrained citizen militias are the only alternatives to federal action in these circumstances, and the results would likely be much more bloodshed than that resulting from the actions of a military police force trained in crowd control.

    The Insurrection Act was intended to justify a path to the conditions that would require martial law. In Oregon and Washington State the mayors of Portland and Seattle have placed impossible restrictions on police that make their ability to control violent crowds impossible. The governors have failed to act as well.

    When the life and property of a state's citizens are in danger, and the governor of that state is either unwilling or incapable of removing that danger, the President can declare that state in a condition of insurrection and impose martial law. Further, he can dissolve the state government and impose a federal marshal to oversee new election of state government.

    The U.S. military is experienced in orderly crowd control, having decades of suppressing violence overseas. The chaos in our major cities has the distinct possibility of spinning out of control, as Antifa and BLM are moving up the chain of violence. If the left wing mayors and governors continue to justify the violence and property destruction, and restrict the actions of law enforcement, martial law may be the only defense law abiding citizens have.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ root1657 4 days, 17 hours ago
    When you try to think of what freedoms people should have, always think of how free YOU want to be. When to try to think of what power the gov should have over people, only think of the power you want them to have in terms of your political opposition being in power. If the freedom isn't free enough for me, it isn't free enough. If the power would be terrifying in the hands of an opponent, then it shouldn't be granted to the gov.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 4 days, 17 hours ago
    Martial law is fine externally, after we defeat another country that has attacked us, and we are restoring order to that country (Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)

    I can only imagine a proper case domestically, if we have been overrun by an external enemy. Then it must be instituted.

    Never as a police action. Ever.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 4 days, 17 hours ago
    I think the only time martial law is acceptable is for an existential threat posed by threat of war. That doesn't include the so-called threats of a biological agent but surely would if war were declared against the nation which launched that weapon in the first place. Without an actual declaration of war, there should be no invocation of martial law.

    Some would say that the recent riots in so many places constitute an existential threat worthy of declaring martial law. To that I simply say "No." Get your law enforcement in action and start arresting people. The bigger problem there is that we aren't trying some of these people for treason and hanging them. You can bet that would get the attention of many of those participants.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 4 days, 15 hours ago
    I have lost a lot of respect for our government since the whole corona thing. It is unconstitutional for our government at any level to forbid people from freely dealing with each other and shutting down the economy. We are all paying for these governmental actions, and may not recover for a LONG time.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by 3 days, 19 hours ago
    Would a petition by local small businesses for assistance from the federal government be acceptable reason for federal intervention, assuming that the petitioners had been refused help by local and state officials?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jdg 4 days, 9 hours ago
    My take is that martial law is simply an "extreme means" -- not wrong per se, but comparable to revolution as something you save for dire emergencies.

    But government has an absolute duty to protect people and their property from riots. And if federalism stands in the way, as seems to be true in cities that aren't even trying to stop the riots or punish the perps, then it is morally mandatory to sweep federalism aside and get the job done.

    If the president will not do so, then we will have to hope some warlord arises who will do it for us, just as Pinochet, or someone like him, was the only way for Chileans to take their country back once Communists took it over. If he had not appeared, that country would still be the hell that Venezuela is.

    To answer rdjohnson56' question, by martial law I simply mean the use of army troops or Marines to do law enforcement jobs that local police ought to be doing but can't or won't. Other possible special actions by government do also deserve discussion, but "emergency powers" makes more sense as a label for the broad category.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rdjohnson56 4 days, 15 hours ago
    Ok. I think we need to back up a minute. I would like to see a discussion, now, about just what is "martial law"? Let's define what it is. What exactly happens during "martial law"? What restrictions, exactly, are to be placed upon citizens' movements, speech, rights to do business, etc, etc. will be enforced? That's what I would like to know first before I would/could say "never" to do or "maybe" based on circumstances.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 25n56il4 4 days, 7 hours ago
      The one thing you need to know about Martial Law is that the Constitution is set aside. Local officials are replaced. This is a very serious step and one I do not wish to see invoked. Call me a radical Texan but I prefer local rule to government chaos!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 25n56il4 4 days, 7 hours ago
        I am familiar with Washington D.C. mentality. I was a federal lobbyist for ten years. I have served on my city's council. I was Mayor Pro Tem. I was the first lady elected to our City Council. I don't approve of my present Mayor but I don't want him booted out and replaced with a stranger.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo