What will happen if Donald Trump declares martial law?

On a federal level, only the president has the power to impose Martial Law. ... The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law.

Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state.

OldSalt posted:

Thanks for the non-answer. 

But, taking a conservative interpretation of the Constitution, the President does not have the power to declare martial law since it is not one of the powers specifically granted to that office in Article II.

On a federal level, only the president has the power to impose Martial Law. ... The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law.

Neither constitutional provision includes a direct reference to martial law. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted both to allow the declaration of martial law by the president or Congress. On the state level, a governor may declare martial law within her or his own state.

----------
Maybe you were talking about Mobamer, illegal presidents aren't
allowed into the country except those with a Xerox birth certificate
and stolen SSN-----

 

when Obama was president there were many that were afraid he was going to declare Martial law.  There were many rumors of weapons stashed, Nato taking over, etc.  However with behavior of FBI and other national govt. agencies it may not be all that fare fetched.   The reality is that a lot of what we follow is FEAR, False Events Appearing Real

While, the constitution does provide for suspension of habeas corpus, its a power rarely used.  Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for Maryland -- mainly to keep the state assembly from seceding and in parts of the midwestern states. Eventually, SCOTUS declared the suspension unconstitutional and voided all military courts on civilian matters.

President Bush suspended habeas corpus for alien combatants caught on the battlefield.  

There is no constitutional power for a president to declare martial law.  Governors may declare such for portions or all of the state, if local police and officials can't keep order.  There are federal regulations for a president to restore order during disasters and loss of local/state government authority.  However, the president is supposed to contact the governors first to ask if such is required. Even then, there are checks upon martial law implementation. 

 

 

Tweeter-in-Chief    his fat ass   interesting how democrats talk about behavior while showing disrespect.   How they talked about excepting the election and as soon as they lost have acted like a two year old.  How Obama said jobs were never coming back (mostly cuz he is for global government) and President Trump has brought jobs back.  Interesting how many top democrats in the past wanted something done on the border, now they are against it.  Democrats don't care about our country, they are only about being in power.  Congress does nothing but fill their pockets with our money.  They just get in front of cameras and yell about the other party.  Wake up America their plan is to keep us separated and fighting against each other.

Yet there's still no explanation for the Red Rooster Inn and the more
than a thousand other communist atrocity by the mobuma slaves
while they sing "I walk the line".. No wonder liberals don't accept the
title "Americans" for their own---    
Kraven posted:
Yet there's still no explanation for the Red Rooster Inn and the more
than a thousand other communist atrocity by the mobuma slaves
while they sing "I walk the line".. No wonder liberals don't accept the
title "Americans" for their own---    

The attacks on Republican politicians and their staff in public....called for and urged on by the left with the likes of Maxine Waters.....lies about, and attacks on Melania Trump. The Obamas never faced such. They were free to make their racist statements and bring anti-Americans into the WH with the left never making a peep.

So far, the Americans indicted or convicted during the Mueller investigation have nothing to do with Russian conspiracy, nor obstruction.  True, Russians and Russian companies have been indicted.  That Russia hacked and bought false ads is known.  Russia, alone.  So far, no conspiracy.

Again, doubtful that martial law would or could be implemented.  That's a Democrat dream.  Remember, whatever Democrats accuse one of, the Democrats are already committing the thing, or planning to do so.

Very poor understanding of the 25th Amendment, I see. First, the VP and a majority of the cabinet must agree on the removal. The president may disagree, upon which a second vote must be held.  If the president still disagrees, it would take two-thirds of both houses of Congress to remove the president. 

 

direstraits posted:

So far, the Americans indicted or convicted during the Mueller investigation have nothing to do with Russian conspiracy, nor obstruction.  True, Russians and Russian companies have been indicted.  That Russia hacked and bought false ads is known.  Russia, alone.  So far, no conspiracy.

Again, doubtful that martial law would or could be implemented.  That's a Democrat dream.  Remember, whatever Democrats accuse one of, the Democrats are already committing the thing, or planning to do so.

Very poor understanding of the 25th Amendment, I see. First, the VP and a majority of the cabinet must agree on the removal. The president may disagree, upon which a second vote must be held.  If the president still disagrees, it would take two-thirds of both houses of Congress to remove the president. 

 

 

direstraits posted:

So far, the Americans indicted or convicted during the Mueller investigation have nothing to do with Russian conspiracy, nor obstruction.  True, Russians and Russian companies have been indicted.  That Russia hacked and bought false ads is known.  Russia, alone.  So far, no conspiracy.

Again, doubtful that martial law would or could be implemented.  That's a Democrat dream.  Remember, whatever Democrats accuse one of, the Democrats are already committing the thing, or planning to do so.

Very poor understanding of the 25th Amendment, I see. First, the VP and a majority of the cabinet must agree on the removal. The president may disagree, upon which a second vote must be held.  If the president still disagrees, it would take two-thirds of both houses of Congress to remove the president. 

 

The 25th Amendment reasons burdening the Blithering Buffoon are not by any means limited to those that might involve coziness with Russians. You seem to avoid such matters as the payoffs to floozies  in likely violation of election laws and the brazen violations of the emoluments clause.  Besides all that, my reference to the 25th Amendment simply noted that there are potential reasons for its invocation. I said nothing at all about the Constitutional mechanism involved. Your diversion to the latter is nothing but a straw man argument and is thus worthless. Also, you might consider telling us the details of the Democrats' phony foundations and cite the particular Democrats who have engineered such fraudulent deceptions or who are planning to do so since you have concluded that "... whatever Democrats accuse one of, the Democrats are already committing the thing, or planning to do so."

Your "So far" reminds me of one of the "Little Moron" jokes of the 1950s: "What did the Little Moron yell at each story after jumping off the Empire State Building?" Answer: "O.K  so far."

Contendahh posted:
Kraven posted:
OldSalt posted:

For what reason would the President declare martial law?

If that hasn't hit every liberal between the eyes by now
just think of it as over their heads----

From Kraven cometh another silly, irrelevant, non-substantive  non-answer from the expert in such matters.

 

Should the Tweeter-in-Chief be so stupid as to declare martial law, it would likely be for reasons utterly inappropriate for that kind of action and his fat ass would be grass!  Should he attempt to do it,  that would likely become the straw that broke the camel's back already overloaded with 25th Amendment reasons for removal from office.

Why don't you learn to post without the obscenities and vitriol?

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

So far, the Americans indicted or convicted during the Mueller investigation have nothing to do with Russian conspiracy, nor obstruction.  True, Russians and Russian companies have been indicted.  That Russia hacked and bought false ads is known.  Russia, alone.  So far, no conspiracy.

Again, doubtful that martial law would or could be implemented.  That's a Democrat dream.  Remember, whatever Democrats accuse one of, the Democrats are already committing the thing, or planning to do so.

Very poor understanding of the 25th Amendment, I see. First, the VP and a majority of the cabinet must agree on the removal. The president may disagree, upon which a second vote must be held.  If the president still disagrees, it would take two-thirds of both houses of Congress to remove the president. 

 

The 25th Amendment reasons burdening the Blithering Buffoon are not by any means limited to those that might involve coziness with Russians. You seem to avoid such matters as the payoffs to floozies  in likely violation of election laws and the brazen violations of the emoluments clause.  Besides all that, my reference to the 25th Amendment simply noted that there are potential reasons for its invocation. I said nothing at all about the Constitutional mechanism involved. Your diversion to the latter is nothing but a straw man argument and is thus worthless. Also, you might consider telling us the details of the Democrats' phony foundations and cite the particular Democrats who have engineered such fraudulent deceptions or who are planning to do so since you have concluded that "... whatever Democrats accuse one of, the Democrats are already committing the thing, or planning to do so."

Your "So far" reminds me of one of the "Little Moron" jokes of the 1950s: "What did the Little Moron yell at each story after jumping off the Empire State Building?" Answer: "O.K  so far."

The 25th Amendment is for removal of a president because he can't perform him job. The reasons you cite are matters for impeachment.

As to FEC violations, Obama failed to correctly report $1.8 million in contributions. For that he was fined $375,000 -- the largest fine for FEC violations in history.  Trump paid two women for $175,000 and $150,000, separately, for signing non-disclosure agreements.  Reportedly, Cohen made the payments and was reimbursed by Trump.  No campaign funds were involved.  

I suggest you look up the federal statutes involving the Emoluments Clause.  First, commerce with the public is not covered. Second, the only penalty is to refund the government the value of any emolument received. Got that, its a civil law affair, not criminal.  

In the case of the 25th Amendment, it takes 2/3ds of both houses to remove from office.  In the case of impeachment, it takes a majority in the House and a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to convict.  Democrats don't have a 2/3rds majority in the Senate, or in the House, where they only have a majority. 

I suspect, if such even made it to the Senate, as a matter of impeachment, the presiding judge, the Chief Justice of the United States, would dismiss such charges out of hand as not meeting the standards required by the Constitution. 

 

Jutu posted:
Contendahh posted:
Kraven posted:
OldSalt posted:

For what reason would the President declare martial law?

If that hasn't hit every liberal between the eyes by now
just think of it as over their heads----

From Kraven cometh another silly, irrelevant, non-substantive  non-answer from the expert in such matters.

 

Should the Tweeter-in-Chief be so stupid as to declare martial law, it would likely be for reasons utterly inappropriate for that kind of action and his fat ass would be grass!  Should he attempt to do it,  that would likely become the straw that broke the camel's back already overloaded with 25th Amendment reasons for removal from office.

Why don't you learn to post without the obscenities and vitriol?

Jutu, Democrat frustration in process.  They tend to get even more irrational, when they don't get their way.  

Contendahh posted:

And just where do you find "profanities"? "Ass" is not a profanity. As to "vitriol" I find no record of your chastising such participants as Kraven, whose forays into vitriol far exceed any causticity I have generated.

I see you are too "set in your ways" and think you can come in, take over and bully folks by calling them names and using obscenities. There is a fix for that. Block.

direstraits posted:
Jutu posted:
Contendahh posted:
Kraven posted:
OldSalt posted:

For what reason would the President declare martial law?

If that hasn't hit every liberal between the eyes by now
just think of it as over their heads----

From Kraven cometh another silly, irrelevant, non-substantive  non-answer from the expert in such matters.

 

Should the Tweeter-in-Chief be so stupid as to declare martial law, it would likely be for reasons utterly inappropriate for that kind of action and his fat ass would be grass!  Should he attempt to do it,  that would likely become the straw that broke the camel's back already overloaded with 25th Amendment reasons for removal from office.

Why don't you learn to post without the obscenities and vitriol?

Jutu, Democrat frustration in process.  They tend to get even more irrational, when they don't get their way.  

Do all Republicans believe Democrats act like Republicans?

For 8 years, Republicans did everything they could do to obstruct President Obama or any progress. Now, Republicans blame Democrats for the Republican failures of the past 2 years. If Republicans have control of the WH, Senate, and House, why didn't Republicans get anything done? Well, nothing more than a tax break for the wealthy. The numbers are coming in on that tax break and the stock market sure doesn't seem to think they're doing too good.

 

Kraven posted:
ACA was a fail before it started. It wasn't intended to work, just
pave the way to single payer. Everything he wanted was for one
world government.
Of course he had to be stopped but it's only a slowdown before
the UN is allowed excess.

So...

Single payer healthcare is bad, because Obama?

Martial law is good, because trump?

L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
Jutu posted:
Contendahh posted:
Kraven posted:
OldSalt posted:

For what reason would the President declare martial law?

If that hasn't hit every liberal between the eyes by now
just think of it as over their heads----

From Kraven cometh another silly, irrelevant, non-substantive  non-answer from the expert in such matters.

 

Should the Tweeter-in-Chief be so stupid as to declare martial law, it would likely be for reasons utterly inappropriate for that kind of action and his fat ass would be grass!  Should he attempt to do it,  that would likely become the straw that broke the camel's back already overloaded with 25th Amendment reasons for removal from office.

Why don't you learn to post without the obscenities and vitriol?

Jutu, Democrat frustration in process.  They tend to get even more irrational, when they don't get their way.  

Do all Republicans believe Democrats act like Republicans?

For 8 years, Republicans did everything they could do to obstruct President Obama or any progress. Now, Republicans blame Democrats for the Republican failures of the past 2 years. If Republicans have control of the WH, Senate, and House, why didn't Republicans get anything done? Well, nothing more than a tax break for the wealthy. The numbers are coming in on that tax break and the stock market sure doesn't seem to think they're doing too good.

 

Tax reductions for all and significant reductions in economic killing regulations, resulting in one of the largest economic booms in history.  

Progressive economists stated a GDP of 2 percent was the new normal.  The average GDP for the eight years of the Obama maladministration was 1.8 percent -- the worst recovery in over 100 years. For the last six quarters, the average was 3.2 percent.  The same economists stated unemployment of 5 to 6 percent was the new normal.  Present unemployment is 3.9 percent and was below that for the previous two months.  The same economists stated the industrial jobs were never coming back.  For the last two years, industrial jobs increased by 450,000.  

The tax reductions resulted in record 2018 tax revenue increases.  Which was the same result of the previous three tax reductions. 

Tax revenue changes, before and after tax cuts (corrected for inflation).

For the eight years after JFK/LBJ cuts – increase of $522.2 billion.

For the eight years after Reagan tax cuts – increase of $2.944 trillion.

For the eight years after Bush tax cuts – increase of $4.788 trillion

Source:  Office of Management and Budget historic tables.

https://obamawhitehouse.archiv...b/budget/Historicals

As to why the congress did not do more, any fool knows that in the Senate, a 60 percent super majority is required to pass most legislation. 

Europe and China are experiencing an economic downturn, which the market responds to, despite American economic success.  Because, about 85 percent of stock trades in the US are managed by algorithms resulting in panic selling and buying. The programs analyze the news and respond.  Unfortunately, not always in a rational way. 

 

Naio posted:
Kraven posted:
ACA was a fail before it started. It wasn't intended to work, just
pave the way to single payer. Everything he wanted was for one
world government.
Of course he had to be stopped but it's only a slowdown before
the UN is allowed excess.

So...

Single payer healthcare is bad, because Obama?

Martial law is good, because trump?

Only Democrats have even mentioned martial law.  Which means that only Democrats are considering such.  

direstraits posted:
Naio posted:
Kraven posted:
ACA was a fail before it started. It wasn't intended to work, just
pave the way to single payer. Everything he wanted was for one
world government.
Of course he had to be stopped but it's only a slowdown before
the UN is allowed excess.

So...

Single payer healthcare is bad, because Obama?

Martial law is good, because trump?

Only Democrats have even mentioned martial law.  Which means that only Democrats are considering such.  

You don't pay much attention to the topics on these forums, do you? Kraven is the ONLY POSTER to post such drivel and like a good Republican, you blame the Democrats.

L. Cranston posted:
direstraits posted:
Naio posted:
Kraven posted:
ACA was a fail before it started. It wasn't intended to work, just
pave the way to single payer. Everything he wanted was for one
world government.
Of course he had to be stopped but it's only a slowdown before
the UN is allowed excess.

So...

Single payer healthcare is bad, because Obama?

Martial law is good, because trump?

Only Democrats have even mentioned martial law.  Which means that only Democrats are considering such.  

You don't pay much attention to the topics on these forums, do you? Kraven is the ONLY POSTER to post such drivel and like a good Republican, you blame the Democrats.

Kraven was commenting on a Quora site. Any search of martial law and Trump yields Democrat and liberals frightened of such. Salon being one of the most hysterical.

Add Reply

Likes (0)

×
×
×
×