General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is Martial Law coming on April 20th? Be warned. [View all]onenote
(45,576 posts)he Supreme Court long ago explained what martial law is and the limits of its implementation under the Constitution:
Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)
"If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."
The Insurrection Act is invoked when the military is needed to assist local law enforcement -- as in the numerous instances when it has been invoked, such as by LBJ to assist in responding to riots following the assassination of Dr. King and most recently by GWBush in response to riots following the beating of Rodney King. Invoking the Insurrection Act was needed to override the Posse Comitatus Act with otherwise limits the use of the military for law enforcement. But martial law wasn't invoked because the courts were not "actually closed" requiring military tribunals to conduct judicial business. And they're not "actually closed" now.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):