Impeachment (Split from: Is this war with Iran?)

[iNow]

In other words, you’re making stuff up 

3 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

At this point, it doesn't matter what the law or constitution says, because it is a method of getting rid of it.  It would just no longer apply, but it could be in accordance with international law

lol 

[Conjurer]

5 minutes ago, iNow said:

In other words, you’re making stuff up 

lol 

What is so difficult about this that you are not understanding?  If the military takes over, we would be ran on military law, period.  The military would then be in charge.  The president is the head of the military.  It is a popular hypothetical scenario.  I didn't come up with it.

Say there was a zombie apocalypse, and we declared martial law due to a state of national emergency.  Then you chop someones arm off because they got bit on the hand by a zombie.  You wouldn't have to go to court and face trial for doing that, because the court system would no longer be a functioning part of the government.  It means it is just every man, women, and child for themselves at that point.  It would mean that everything is in complete chaos, and the cops and judges would no longer care about arresting you to take you to trial.   

[iNow]

I see. Fascinating. 

Quote

In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_the_United_States

[Conjurer]

 

12 minutes ago, iNow said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law_in_the_United_States

^[1] Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

If there is an invasion or rebellion, then it cannot be stopped by the court, if you read on in that web site.  Then the only court you would have to attend to from any of your actions would be that of a military court.  You would basically have to be arrested by the military in that kind of situation to face a trial.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Conjurer

[iNow]

Quite right. And I showed how it could be reversed. Do you even know what point you’re trying to make here?

[Conjurer]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Quite right. And I showed how it could be reversed. Do you even know what point you’re trying to make here?

I just posted the article to how it could not be suspended.  Read my previous post again.  According to article 1, section 9, someone could fire a nuke and start a nuclear holocaust, and it could prevent them from being impeached.  Then we would be under military law in a military dictatorship.  There would be nothing they could legally do about it.

You need read about the part of what Habeas Corpus actually means.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Conjurer said:

If they are in a state of martial law, the other parts of the government are shut down, and people are only tried by a military court.

If it's in the constitution, you should be able to cite article, section and subsection. If it's in federal law, title and section of the US code.

So I will ask again: What specific part of the constitution, or federal law, specifies this?

 

10 hours ago, Conjurer said:

  It is more of a cause and effect type of thing.  The law isn't going to state what happens after the law no longer applies anymore, because no one would be following it anyways.  At this point, it doesn't matter what the law or constitution says, because it is a method of getting rid of it.  It would just no longer apply, but it could be in accordance with international law.

Martial law is still law (it's in the name). And it will matter what the constitution says, because there has to be a method for discontinuing martial law. The constitution is ALWAYS in effect. 

 

10 hours ago, Conjurer said:

 

^[1] Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."

If there is an invasion or rebellion, then it cannot be stopped by the court, if you read on in that web site.  Then the only court you would have to attend to from any of your actions would be that of a military court.  You would basically have to be arrested by the military in that kind of situation to face a trial.

Notice how that says what may be suspended (under very specific circumstances) is the "writ of Habeas Corpus" and not "all of the constitution"

[iNow]

8 hours ago, Conjurer said:

I just posted the article to how it could not be suspended.  Read my previous post again. 

You seem to struggle with reading comprehension. You also exemplify the Dunning Kruger effect, over confident despite being badly mistaken. Either that, or you’re just dishonest (perhaps some mix of those?).

To help minimize those struggles for you, I will state plainly that it’s the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 which directly refutes your incorrect assertions. 

[Conjurer]

You two just fail to recognize the concept of the executive branch or military taking over the government by force.  If you take control of something by force, you don't have to adhere to what the people say that you have forcefully taken control of.  The constitution just allows that process to begin in extreme circumstances.  Then it could be started by the president in-sighting extreme circumstances, which he has the power to do.  It doesn't matter what the constitution says after that point.

For instance, we turned Iraq into a democratic form of government.  It was taken over, so the democratic law they had no longer applies.  There was nothing in the laws of their democracy that apply now...  They are no longer a democracy.  They are not going to look into their democratic constitution to see what they should do now.

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

You two just fail to recognize the concept of the executive branch or military taking over the government by force. 

Which would be a coup, and not something covered by the constitution (other than to define it as treason). It does not allow this process to begin.  

[Conjurer]

2 minutes ago, swansont said:

Which would be a coup, and not something covered by the constitution (other than to define it as treason). It does not allow this process to begin.  

That is the entire basis of the theory.  The Constitution doesn't allow us to get steam rolled by a Russian invasion, because they do not agree with the presidents actions.  It allows the president to take whatever actions necessary to protect the people of the country in those types of situations, even if it means he has to go against the will of the congress.

[iNow]

36 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

It allows the president to take whatever actions necessary to protect the people of the country in those types of situations, even if it means he has to go against the will of the congress.

Until or unless Congress votes otherwise. We’ve covered this already. 

The type of takeover you describe wouldn’t be done by the executive branch. It would be done by rogue leaders within the military who decide to break their oaths and standards of conduct. If they did this, there would be opposition from those of honor and integrity and would likely be stopped... especially if/when congress steps in. 

You’re writing interesting fictions, but it’d be much more fun if you at least rooted them in a foundation of reality and nuance.