PDA

View Full Version : Making Martial Law Easier



Gold9472
02-20-2007, 09:31 AM
Making martial law easier

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/19/opinion/edlaw.php

Published: February 19, 2007

A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night. So it was with a provision quietly tucked into the enormous defense budget bill at the Bush administration's behest that makes it easier for a president to override local control of law enforcement and declare martial law.

The provision, signed into law in October, weakens two obscure but important bulwarks of liberty. One is the doctrine that bars military forces, including a federalized National Guard, from engaging in law enforcement. Called posse comitatus, it was enshrined in law after the Civil War to preserve the line between civil government and the military. The other is the Insurrection Act of 1807, which provides the major exemptions to posse comitatus. It essentially limits a president's use of the military in law enforcement to putting down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion, where a state is violating federal law or depriving people of constitutional rights.

The newly enacted provisions upset this careful balance. They shift the focus from making sure that federal laws are enforced to restoring public order.

Beyond cases of actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or to any "other condition."

Changes of this magnitude should be made only after a thorough public airing. But these new presidential powers were slipped into the law without hearings or public debate. The president made no mention of the changes when he signed the measure, and neither the White House nor Congress consulted in advance with the country's governors.

There is a bipartisan bill, introduced by Senators Patrick Leahy, Democrat of Vermont, and Christopher Bond, Republican of Missouri, and backed unanimously by the nation's governors, that would repeal the stealthy revisions. Congress should pass it. If changes of this kind are proposed in the future, they must get a full and open debate.

AuGmENTor
02-20-2007, 10:16 AM
I am not saying that this is OK. But I hear Bill Maher make a good point about these things needing to be rewritten from time to time. I belive he refrenced part of the constitution that SAID it would need to be tweaked from time to time. That does NOT mean that I think Bush is the guy that should be rewriting it.

PhilosophyGenius
02-20-2007, 06:29 PM
I am not saying that this is OK. But I hear Bill Maher make a good point about these things needing to be rewritten from time to time. I belive he refrenced part of the constitution that SAID it would need to be tweaked from time to time. That does NOT mean that I think Bush is the guy that should be rewriting it.

I'm sure Maher was talking about things like machine guns where it was necessary for everyone to pack heat back in the day, but owning a heavy arsinal is not good for today's society. Things like that where the consitution needs to be updated with modern times.

AuGmENTor
02-20-2007, 10:11 PM
I'm sure Maher was talking about things like machine guns where it was necessary for everyone to pack heat back in the day, but owning a heavy arsinal is not good for today's society. Things like that where the consitution needs to be updated with modern times.Not sure in what context he meant it. I only know that origionally we had the right to bear arms in case we had to overthrow our government, or fight indians. Meaning I should have the right to bar what the military has. Of course the need for a grenade launcher really isn't practical. But to even limit the number of rounds I can have in a magazine just pisses me off.

PhilosophyGenius
02-21-2007, 01:10 AM
He meant it was to do things like keep up with the times.