1. Sign up now and join over 35,000 northwest gun owners. It's quick, easy, and 100% free!
  2. We're giving away over $1,000 in prizes this month in the Northwest Firearms Winter Giveaway!
    Dismiss Notice


Discussion in 'Legal & Political Archive' started by zeezee, Oct 14, 2009.

  1. zeezee

    zeezee nowheresville Member

    Likes Received:
    Here is the full article so kindle donated by the good people at S.W.A.T Magazine, written by STEWART RHODES;
    The term “martial law” is increasingly being thrown around.
    Last fall Congress was told, behind the scenes, if it did not pass the bailout for the banksters on Wall Street, there would be chaos in the streets that might lead to “martial law.”
    Then the mayor of the town of Schenectady, New York publicly considered calling on the state governor to impose “martial law” so the National Guard could temporarily replace a supposedly corrupt police department.
    The Harrisburg, Pennsylvania chapter of the NAACP called for “martial law” so the National Guard could stop “gun violence” among local gang bangers. The chapter president stated, “The Guard is for natural disasters. I don’t know any more of a natural disaster than of our young people being killed.”
    I can picture Sarah Brady smacking her forehead and saying to herself, “Gee, why didn’t I think of that? Who cares if the Supreme Court’s Heller decision ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms? Just declare martial law and you can scrap the Second Amendment altogether, along with all those other pesky amendments in the Bill of Rights that get in the way of making us safe!”
    I’m just waiting for Al Gore to call on Obama to declare martial law to stop global warming.
    As we head toward a very real possibility of economic collapse, we hear increased chatter among media talking heads, two-bit politicians, and supposed “legal scholars” about how martial law may be necessary. They should be careful what they wish for, because they just may get it—good and hard.
    “Necessity is the plea of every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” — William Pitt the younger.
    Get this straight: there is nothing in the Constitution that grants the President power to declare martial law. Not one word. Go look. The term “martial law” is nowhere to be found in the text of the Constitution, and for damn good reason.
    The bleating sheeple calling for martial law don’t even know what martial law is.
    Martial law is absolute rule by the military, which replaces the civil government. Under martial law, the will of the military commander in the field is law. Martial law is what we impose on a conquered enemy population in wartime, as was done to defeated Germany and Japan at the end of World War II. Martial law is what we imposed on Iraq after the toppling of Saddam. Nowhere in our Constitutional design is our military allowed to rule over the American people as if they were a conquered enemy population.
    The closest thing to martial law in our Constitution is suspension of habeas corpus, with Article 1, Section 9 stating, “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.”
    Habeas suspension must be declared by Congress, and may be used only during an actual invasion or insurrection. And habeas suspension allows only for detention without indictment, for whatever time period Congress specifies by statute. During the Civil War, for example, the habeas statute passed by Congress allowed for detention without indictment for only 20 days, after which the government had to indict or release.
    Habeas suspension does not allow the President to use military trial on civilians or to establish executive tribunals and then execute those convicted. Detention during habeas suspension is not the same thing as martial law.
    “Martial law” is really the absence of law, since there would be no need for Congress to do anything except sit on its hands. And under martial law, the very will and mere word of Obama, as Commander in Chief, would be “law,” and if you violated his “law” of the moment, whatever he decided should be law as he sat at breakfast.
    He could have you and your entire family black bagged, interned, tried by a hand-picked secret tribunal and executed (or simply shot on sight), all without any written law, without indictment, and without a jury trial. Your only possible appeal would be to him. With all the powers of supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executioner in the same hands, he would be an absolute dictator.
    One of the causes of revolution listed in our Declaration of Independence was the attempt “to render the military independent of and superior to the civil power,” and it was the attempt to disarm the people during martial law under General Gage that finally sparked the shooting war. The Founders did not intend that whoever happened to be elected President could scrap the Constitution and rule as a military dictator during some “crisis.” Ours is a government of laws, not men.
    As James Madison put it in Federalist No. 47, “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”
    Our Constitution is designed to divide and limit power, and the President is not above it. Like everyone else in public service, he is sworn to defend the Constitution, and when he breaks his oath and attempts to assume all the powers of a tyrant, it is our right, it is our duty, to resist that attempt. (For more information, go to www.oathkeepers.org/oath/martial-law.)
    Obama’s right-hand man, Rahm Emanuel, once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” Imagine what “big things” he and his ilk would have planned for your life, liberty, and property under martial law. The gun confiscation gleefully imposed during Hurricane Katrina—as if a bit of bad weather scrapped the Second Amendment—should be your first clue. Imagine how much worse it would get under nationwide martial law. Take a look at the sad history of Germany under the Nazis and Russia, China, and Cambodia under the communists and you will get your answer.
    If the President declares martial law under the pretext of some “crisis,” you should take that as a declaration of war on you, your kids, and your rights, because once it starts, it won’t stop until our Republic is scrapped forever. Do not accept it.
    And if you are in the military or police, do not go along with “martial law” and do not enforce it. Your oath is to defend the Constitution, and that Constitution does not permit its own destruction at the hands of a willful politician.
    If the empty suits in D.C. try it, stand down and tell them to saddle up and go out to enforce their “martial law” themselves. Then sit back, pop open a cold one and enjoy the show. We the people will take care of the rest. </i>
    My sincere thanks to,
    Rich Lucibella
    SWAT Magazine
    5011 N. Ocean Blvd
    Suite 5
    Ocean Ridge, FL 33435
  2. MountainBear

    MountainBear Sweet Home, OR Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    There's nothing in the constitution about the separation of church and state either, but look how much that one's thrown around (its based roughly on a Thomas Jefferson letter and a stretching the first amendment).
    I'm not sure that the government wants to give its populace a better excuse to revolt than it already has. I think declaring large-scale martial law would be a disaster for the U.S. as it exists right now.
  3. NK777

    NK777 West of Portland Member

    Likes Received:
    Declaring Martial law would not be wise. The people will fight back! The true patriot would stand there ground. They have to know how dangerous it would be to attempt to impose. Talk about a bloody place it would become. America the Afghanistan west except the patriots would be declared the terrorist even though the terrorist would in fact be those doing the will of the government.

    Very dangerous... Very very dangerous in deed. Please wake up government! This would end very badly. Your military veteran's, gun owners, etc. would stand up against you. Patriots will not stand to live under military rule in this country.
  4. dario541

    dario541 medford, or 97504 Member

    Likes Received:
    But, if a President did declare "Martial Law" I would take it as a "to the death" battle for freedom. You are correct that there is nothing anywhere that authorizes any government employee (these are OUR SERVANTS, REMEMBER?) to destroy the citizens' God-Given Rights. But, I believe that anybody who wanted to do that would have the support of the whole world, which HATES AMERICA'S FREEDOM! The bulk of the world's governments are tyrants, dictators, and czars, etc., who do not wants their slaves to see the LIGHT from America (Remember the Chinese building a copy of the Statue of Liberty at Tianaman (sic) Square?).
  5. JumpWing

    JumpWing NK WA Member

    Likes Received:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

    I don't know. Seems pretty clear to me.
  6. Ding

    Ding Lighter Side of Oz Active Member

    Likes Received:
    I personally think if the so called prez did call for martial law,the military would make coup to oust the usurper.Even if the call was made also I don't think the military would do it,martial law that is.Remember,the military is full of battle hardened patriots that don't like what direction this guy is taking the country.I expect them to do something soon enough anyway.A lot of firsts have been happening this year,like nobel peace prize for nothing,Czars,card carrying communists in power,well you get my drift.A lot can happen in a very short time if the right fuse is lit.
  7. MountainBear

    MountainBear Sweet Home, OR Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    Acknowledgment of a higher power does not constitute a state sponsored religion. There are higher powers in Christianity, Islam, Druid, Hinduism, Taoism, etc., etc. Acknowledging religion does not constitute state sponsorship or endorsement either. But thats off topic for this thread...
  8. JumpWing

    JumpWing NK WA Member

    Likes Received:
    I was responding to "nothing in the Constitution about separation of church and state". The first two prohibitives basically cover the spectrum (you can't make people do it, you can't stop people from doing it). Like most things in the USC, this notion has been pushed to the extreme and once a higher power is in any way acknowledged, the quibbling begins over whose definition of "higher power" will be used because some of them are mutually exclusive.

    At any rate, to keep at least some of my post on topic (forgive my above digression)...

    Martial law in this country would be opening a pandora's box of problems. Not only would we be looking at civil unrest and partial troop revolt (bad enough in themselves), but such a situation, if it continued for any length of time, is going to make the U.S. vulnerable to foreign military assaults. I can think of at least a few nations that have the wherewithal to aggressively put troops on U.S. soil, if only to "annex" a portion of it.
  9. wichaka

    wichaka Wa State Well-Known Member

    Likes Received:
    The section is for firearms related politics only.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.