Martial Law whenever Bush feels like it

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h109-5122

Suddenly the reason for the second amendment is crystal clear.

EDIT: A link to the article explaining the law http://duggmirror.com/politics/Bush_Moves_Toward_Martial_Law_2/

As disturbing as this is, even without it the only limits an out-of-control federal executive is the conscience of the military and political opposition. We’ve been a war state ever since we put Japanese-American citizens in camps.

Too bad the second amendment means nothing in the face of modern military technology, eh?

The only practical, modern, means of enforcing the intent of the 2nd amendment is to disband the federal military.

In other news the Iraqi guerillas are losing badly in face of the most advanced army in the world.

Since I thought this was the most important part of the article, it basically summarizes to:
The President can employ any and all armed forces to any State for any purpose whatsoever.

(Also, TheSelfishGene, editing and removing your reply is a little late, eh?)

Yea :/ Now it’s been enshrined forever in forum histories.

Darn my old and busted ninja editing skills!

So, my Bioshock bubble will be ready…

I fail to see the humor in Our Great Fascist Leader eating kittens.

pfft that’s nothing Clinton used to eat Kittens AND puppies.

Yeah, but not at the same time, so don’t try to mislead people.

As for the attack on our rights, what scares me most is that every new report of a threat to our liberties leaves me feeling less and less shocked and outraged. It’s becoming normal, and that’s scary.

Justice Brennan delivered a speech in Tel Aviv about this subject, called “The Quest to Develop a Jurisprudence of Civil Liberties in Times of Security Crises.” In it, he talks about the our consistent failure to preserve civil liberties during a war.

We have a history of periodic destruction of civil liberties going back to the founding fathers of our country, with the Alien and Sedition act. During the civil war Lincoln enacted similar legislation, as did Wilson during WWI, and WWII, of course, with the internment camps.

One of the ideas Brennan puts forward is that what is needed to establish this tradition is a long, drawn out war/crisis.

Link:

Typical. That waffler never could stick with a decision.

That’s the laziest philosophy on executive power I’ve heard in years. Executive power needs to be checked by constitutional aurhority and rule of law. If you’re living in a world where you’re living at the mercy of the military you’re living under martial law already.

I don’t like it, but it seems to be the practical implication of having an executive whose control of an extremely powerful real-time response military is totally unchecked in the short-run timeframe.

As a broader example, the only thing stopping a US executive from killing millions and millions of people in a nuclear attack is the conscience of his military commanders. He doesn’t need any other government official’s approval, unless you count “multiple cabinet members can have him declared insane to stop it.” Until the late 1980s executives delegated nuclear launch authority to field commanders. Both of these actions would kill untold number of americans just as collateral damage, plus an inconceivable number of foreigners.

We’ve really given the executive a tremendous amount of short-term unchecked power.

We haven’t given him shit. Spineless “representatives” did. He took the rest.

A link to the article explaining the law

Even after reading this, I’m not sure how it’s very different from U.S. Code Title 10 Sections 332 & 333:

Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions,
combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of
the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the
United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the
militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he
considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the
rebellion.

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both,
or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers
necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic
violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy, if it -
(1) so hinders the execution of the laws of that State, and of
the United States within the State, that any part or class of its
people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection
named in the Constitution and secured by law, and the constituted
authorities of that State are unable, fail, or refuse to protect
that right, privilege, or immunity, or to give that protection;
or
(2) opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.
In any situation covered by clause (1), the State shall be
considered to have denied the equal protection of the laws secured
by the Constitution.

unlawful obstructions,
combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of
the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the
United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of
judicial proceedings

Ok, so basically this is saying the President can enable martial law when the following things happen:

unlawful obstructions, combinations, assemblages, or rebellion against the USA and because of this the judicial court systems cannot enforce the laws. The civilian judicial system.

Now, yes, in the new act martial law can be declared on all those things if the judicial court systems can no longer enforce the law. However, the reasons like those 4 things (assemblages, rebellions, etc) are no longer clearly enumerated.

``(A) restore public order and enforce the laws of the United
States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or
other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or
incident, or other condition in any State or possession of the
United States, the President determines that–

So now this part of the code can be true for any condition. With that in mind, it would be a lot easier to say that an event

“obstructs the execution of the laws of the
United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”
“obstructs” and “impedes” are all very relative words, if someone is protesting outside a police station, aren’t they arguably obstructing the execution of the law (making it harder to bring in criminals, etc).

Killing people and enslaving them are two entirely different things. I don’t think martial law would last long here without good cause. The streets of America would quickly look like the streets of Iraq.

Fixed. Now we have to KILL him!