Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Ex-CIA operative: We may need a new vote [View all]onenote
(44,860 posts)73. The SCOTUS has described a very limited set of circumstances where that could happen
"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."
So, no, the Constitution would not allow for martial law under current circumstances.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
87 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Have we ever been in this situation before with the constitution silent on what to do?
libtodeath
Dec 2016
#21
Actually there was nothing in the original set up about people voting for the EC
onenote
Dec 2016
#72
agreed; a foreign power is attempting to hijack our very democracy/government. nt
TheFrenchRazor
Dec 2016
#69
The SCOTUS has described a very limited set of circumstances where that could happen
onenote
Dec 2016
#73
Nope. The person who got the popular vote should be in because those T states are under suspicion.
duffyduff
Dec 2016
#16
We do need a new vote, without trasonous interference from the Russian-Republican cabal
Achilleaze
Dec 2016
#3
BINGO !!! Its not a matter of HOW MUCH they interfered that's a false bar. Its a matter of IF
uponit7771
Dec 2016
#4
This had the appearance of an election but as it turns out the fix was in. A fix is not an election.
AnotherMother4Peace
Dec 2016
#5
States like California and New York could hold referendums on recognizing Trump's authority
KittyWampus
Dec 2016
#12
There should be a petition to the scotus to put a moritorium on the EC vote.
libtodeath
Dec 2016
#18
Well it would be nice if the rest of the US didn't have to fight California and New York...
PoliticAverse
Dec 2016
#87
I'm not sure that there is any kind of legal or constitutional mechanism for holding another
totodeinhere
Dec 2016
#20
If they oppose the infrastructure spending bill they could just not pass it. n/t
PoliticAverse
Dec 2016
#36
If they don't have enough votes to stop the spending bill they aren't going to have enough votes...
PoliticAverse
Dec 2016
#48