Can SCOTUS Interfere with a Declaration of Martial Law as of June 28, 2024?

[ouch]

Being that it's early on in SCOTUS's newest bag of tricks, in which many members here may not yet know the answer(s) to my question, but my eyes desperately thirst for what opinions may be shared about this subject in this thread. Simply because what once appeared Constitutional - now not so much.

 

[Phys251]

Being that it's early on in SCOTUS's newest bag of tricks, in which many members here may not yet know the answer(s) to my question, but my eyes desperately thirst for what opinions may be shared about this subject in this thread. Simply because what once appeared Constitutional - now not so much.

If a Republican president declares martial law, it's constitutional. Otherwise, it's not. --SCOTUS

 

[Mycroft]

Can SCOTUS now interfere w/a Declaration of Martial Law in the US?​

First of all, the Supremes can't rule on anything unless someone files a suit, it runs through the court system and then reaches the Supreme Court.

If all that happens, the Supremes can then rule on the issue based on the Constitution.

So...the short answer to your question is...No. They won't be interfering. They will be engaging in the judicial process.

If you want to accuse someone of interferring, you should look at whomever is filing the lawsuit.

 

[Lutherf]

Being that it's early on in SCOTUS's newest bag of tricks, in which many members here may not yet know the answer(s) to my question, but my eyes desperately thirst for what opinions may be shared about this subject in this thread. Simply because what once appeared Constitutional - now not so much.

Sure. Everything is legal. The president can nuke Texas and that's totally legal because some idiot on Twitter says that's what the Supreme Court decided.

 

[trixare4kids]

Can SCOTUS now interfere w/a Declaration of Martial Law in the US?​

First of all, the Supremes can't rule on anything unless someone files a suit, it runs through the court system and then reaches the Supreme Court.

Lordy, Lordy, why don't some know this?

If all that happens, the Supremes can then rule on the issue based on the Constitution.

So...the short answer to your question is...No. They won't be interfering. They will be engaging in the judicial process.

I'm thankful that you are here to give a middle school civics lesson to some adults who ought to know better.

 

[Mycroft]

Lordy, Lordy, why don't some know this?

I'm thankful that you are here to give a middle school civics lesson to some adults who ought to know better.

It boggles the mind what people don't know, doesn't it?

And just think...those people vote.

 

[trixare4kids]

It boggles the mind what people don't know, doesn't it?

And just think...those people vote.

What's worse is they tell us what THEY think we should know.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Being that it's early on in SCOTUS's newest bag of tricks, in which many members here may not yet know the answer(s) to my question, but my eyes desperately thirst for what opinions may be shared about this subject in this thread. Simply because what once appeared Constitutional - now not so much.

Uncertain: Out of the blue no, but if part of a case before them yes.

 

[rahl]

There is no provision in the constitution for the government to declare “martial law”. They simply do not have the authority to do so

 

[ouch]

Can SCOTUS now interfere w/a Declaration of Martial Law in the US?​

First of all, the Supremes can't rule on anything unless someone files a suit, it runs through the court system and then reaches the Supreme Court.

If all that happens, the Supremes can then rule on the issue based on the Constitution.

First, your opinion is appreciated. However, after June 28th, suspicion with how SCOTUS rules that pretends to support our US Constitution seems obviously evident now.

So...the short answer to your question is...No. They won't be interfering. They will be engaging in the judicial process.

Again, appreciate your opinion. While the DOJ performs its process, I wonder how much more this current high court will interfere with that process going forth.

If you want to accuse someone of interferring, you should look at whomever is filing the lawsuit.

It's up to the lower courts and SCOTUS to accept, or not, filings to rule on. We're all free to share our opinions about those who file if they are doing it in good faith or not. We usually trust the courts to rule fairly without putting their thumbs on the scales of justice. I, for one, don't fully trust SCOTUS any longer.

Possible scenario:
If civil unrest were to break out throughout the US prior to Jan 2025 and states involved failed to resolve the deteriorating situation using their local law enforcement and NG available, in which those collective number of states under domestic siege also began to drastically pull the US economy down - it would make sense that a presidential martial law would be declared in an attempt to restore order where needed. My concern would be (during a state of emergency) if any governor would file his or her objection about the declaration to the court and possibly SCOTUS's final ruling - a SCOTUS that no longer holds trust by many US citizens post June 28, 2024. If they ruled to halt the declaration under such dire circumstances in the US - what's next? A coup?

 

[Mycroft]

First, your opinion is appreciated. However, after June 28th, suspicion with how SCOTUS rules that pretends to support our US Constitution seems obviously evident now.


Again, appreciate your opinion. While the DOJ performs its process, I wonder how much more this current high court will interfere with that process going forth.

I didn't present any opinion. I presented facts and reality.

It's up to the lower courts and SCOTUS to accept, or not, filings to rule on. We're all free to share our opinions about those who file if they are doing it in good faith or not. We usually trust the courts to rule fairly without putting their thumbs on the scales of justice. I, for one, don't fully trust SCOTUS any longer.

You are welcome to your opinion, but I don't care.

Possible scenario:
If civil unrest were to break out throughout the US prior to Jan 2025 and states involved failed to resolve the deteriorating situation using their local law enforcement and NG available, in which those collective number of states under domestic siege also began to drastically pull the US economy down - it would make sense that a presidential martial law would be declared in an attempt to restore order where needed. My concern would be (during a state of emergency) if any governor would file his or her objection about the declaration to the court and possibly SCOTUS's final ruling - a SCOTUS that no longer holds trust by many US citizens post June 28, 2024. If they ruled to halt the declaration under such dire circumstances in the US - what's next? A coup?

You are going way beyond the topic of my comment. I'm not interested in discussing your deflection.

You are dismissed.

 

[ouch]

I didn't present any opinion. I presented facts and reality.


You are welcome to your opinion, but I don't care.


You are going way beyond the topic of my comment. I'm not interested in discussing your deflection.

You are dismissed.

As some have come to decry - Lordy Lordy Lordy!

Regardless, I still appreciate your opinions.

 

[ouch]

There is no provision in the constitution for the government to declare “martial law”. They simply do not have the authority to do so

Technically correct under normal circumstances.

However, there is this to take note of:

Constitutional Topic: Martial Law – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net - U.S. Constitution.net

Constitutional Topic: Martial Law Vote 🗳️ Show Results 📊 (watch ad for results) View Next Poll ➡️ Advertisement The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page...

www.usconstitution.net

Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court
said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it:
When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only
constitutional, but would be necessary: “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.”

 

[Bodecea]

Can SCOTUS now interfere w/a Declaration of Martial Law in the US?​

First of all, the Supremes can't rule on anything unless someone files a suit, it runs through the court system and then reaches the Supreme Court.

If all that happens, the Supremes can then rule on the issue based on the Constitution.

So...the short answer to your question is...No. They won't be interfering. They will be engaging in the judicial process.

If you want to accuse someone of interferring, you should look at whomever is filing the lawsuit.

Democracy,
not a
Dictator

VOTE BLUE

 

[rahl]

Technically correct under normal circumstances.

However, there is this to take note of:

Constitutional Topic: Martial Law – The U.S. Constitution Online – USConstitution.net - U.S. Constitution.net

Constitutional Topic: Martial Law Vote 🗳️ Show Results 📊 (watch ad for results) View Next Poll ➡️ Advertisement The Constitutional Topics pages at the USConstitution.net site are presented to delve deeper into topics than can be provided on the Glossary Page or in the FAQ pages. This Topic Page...

www.usconstitution.net

Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court
said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it:
When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only
constitutional, but would be necessary: “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.”

There is no constitutional basis for this.

 

[Mycroft]

Democracy,
not a
Dictator

VOTE BLUE

Let not your heart be troubled.

Our Constitution makes a dictator impossible.

 

[MSgt]

What would SCOTUS do about it either way?

 

[MSgt]

Let not your heart be troubled.

Our Constitution makes a dictator impossible.

Constitutions are fragile things:

- Since France's first Constitution in 1791, it has seen fifteen more Constitutions. The French, since that first 1791 Constitution, have been governed by three monarchs, two empires, five republics, a socialist commune, and a quasi-fascist regime.

- What was Germany's Constitution worth in the 1930s as conservatives proved anti-constitutionalist, anti-internationalists, and voiced for the return of monarchy, xenophobia, and a closed society?

- It only took a few coup plotters in Iran to whip the mob into a frenzy before tearing down Iranian democracy in 1953 so that the Shah could return to power.

But you think the American Constitution is set in historical concrete, even with your MAGA representation proving how easy it can all go away on January 6? Like the Iranians, MAGA peasants played their unwitting part in Trump's fake-elector coup attempt. Notice that the military (National Guard) came to the rescue of the Constitution, not Trump and his MAGA movement. In the end, our Constitution is only a piece of paper that codifies an ideal. And conservative America has proven that they see that ideal as sacrificial if it serves their self-centered purposes.

 

[Mycroft]

Constitutions are fragile things:

- Since France's first Constitution in 1791, it has seen fifteen more Constitutions. The French, since that first 1791 Constitution, have been governed by three monarchs, two empires, five republics, a socialist commune, and a quasi-fascist regime.

This isn't France.

- What was Germany's Constitution worth in the 1930s as conservatives proved anti-constitutionalist, anti-internationalists, and voiced for the return of monarchy, xenophobia, and a closed society?

This isn't Germany.

- It only took a few coup plotters in Iran to whip the mob into a frenzy before tearing down Iranian democracy in 1953 so that the Shah could return to power.

This isn't Iran.

But you think the American Constitution is set in historical concrete,

Our Constitution isn't set in concrete. It can be amended...but it's difficult.

even with your MAGA representation proving how easy it can all go away on January 6?

The Constitution didn't go away on J6, though the Trump haters got away with their plan to prevent opposition by Congress to election fraud.

Like the Iranians, MAGA peasants played their unwitting part in Trump's fake-elector coup attempt. Notice that the military (National Guard) came to the rescue of the Constitution, not Trump and his MAGA movement.

Trump authorized the National Guard's actions that day.

In the end, our Constitution is only a piece of paper that codifies an ideal.

Wrong.

It's much more than that.

And conservative America has proven that they see that ideal as sacrificial if it serves their self-centered purposes.

Utter nonsense.

 

[ouch]

Our Constitution makes a dictator impossible.

Try telling that to a wannabe dictator - 'on day one' 2025.

Republicans disavow Trump's call to terminate the Constitution but stop short of saying it disqualifies him for 2024

Several GOP senators criticized Trump's statement even as the top two Republicans in Congress have yet to make their views known.

www.nbcnews.com

In a post to his Truth Social platform, Trump suggested terminating the Constitution to put him back in power, referring to false claims of widespread election fraud in 2020.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote.
Sen. Mike Rounds, meanwhile, tied Trump's remarks to his 2024 ambitions.

“Anyone who desires to lead our country must commit to protecting the Constitution. They should not threaten to terminate it,” the South Dakota Republican said in a statement.

 

[Mycroft]

Try telling that to a wannabe dictator - 'on day one' 2025.

After all these years, you still don't recognize Trump trolling when it happens.

You know, don't you, that's why he does it so much?

 

[Mycroft]

In a post to his Truth Social platform, Trump suggested terminating the Constitution to put him back in power, referring to false claims of widespread election fraud in 2020.

“A Massive Fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution,” Trump wrote.

And here, you confirm that you are wedded to media spin.

 

[Common Sense 1]

Was our constitution terminated? By Trump? Nope!

There is your answer!

 

[MSgt]

This isn't France.


This isn't Germany.


This isn't Iran.


Our Constitution isn't set in concrete. It can be amended...but it's difficult.


The Constitution didn't go away on J6, though the Trump haters got away with their plan to prevent opposition by Congress to election fraud.


Trump authorized the National Guard's actions that day.


Wrong.

It's much more than that.


Utter nonsense.

Holy shit. How old are you? C'mon man. I will toss you a bone, because I believe that even you, like the average Iranian in 1953, might be an unwitting pawn in the global right-wing game of re-establishing autocratic power over all, might believe that that you are actually fighting for something righteous. No.

- As even Trump-appointed judges attested to, there was no Democrat election fraud. German Nazi evil. End of right-wing story.
- Trump's eventual "OK' for the National Guard to defend America on HIS January 6, against HIS own incited crowd, means nothing. Does it even matter that all seven Marine Generals, which he exploited for his own personal needs, left him before then?

You are either a proper American or you are not. **** your treacherous partisan treason.

 

[ouch]

After all these years, you still don't recognize Trump trolling when it happens.

You know, don't you, that's why he does it so much?

Absolutely I understand why. His nonstop gibberish is to excite his cult followers and create chaos all at the same time. He's a fake pos but one with strong ambitions to crap all over our nation's democracy and to rule her in the shadow of Putin. It saddens me to see so many intelligent followers waste their efforts on that reality carnie barker smothered in warped shifty lawyers. You know, birds of a feather corrupt together.

There are 5 male Supreme Court Justices that now clearly support his mission as of June 28 that threatens our Constitution and democracy. The one female Supreme Court Justice is only half baked in DJT's juices but still yet voted to give him immunity. The rule of law means nothing to them - just to protect their beloved King.

To be perfectly clear again and as I have mentioned several times before, replace DJT's name with Pres Biden's name owning all that's taken place on behalf of DJT - my strong dissent and disgust with Pres Biden would be the same as it exists today for DJT and the SCOTUS lowlife 6.

It's my sincere belief that if Martial Law were declared today for a legitimate reason involving widespread MAGA civil unrest that SCOTUS would try to intervene. MAGA House certainly would intervene.