Home
Create your own County Guard Group County Sheriff - America's Last Hope
American Patriot Music CD - "Wake Up America
Email Contact: truth (at) thematrixhasyou (dot) org |
Martial Law does NOT suspend Constitutional rights and liberties Case law proves there
are strict limitions of the powers of the Federal Government under the
document known as: "The Constitution of the United States of America," WHICH
INCLUDE BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: EX-PARTE MILLIGAN , 4 WALL 2
(1866); "DECEMBER 17, 1866, Mr. Justice Davis delivered the opinion of the
court:" "No graver question was ever considered by this court" " If there was
law to justify this Military trial, it is not our province to interfere;
if there was not, it is our duty to declare the
nullity of the whole proceedings. The decision of this
question does not depend on argument or Judicial precedents, numerous and highly
illustrative as they are. These precedents inform us of the extent of the
struggle to preserve liberty, and to relieve those in civil life from military
trials. The founders of our government were familiar with the history
of that struggle; and secured in a written constitution every right which
the people had wrested from power during a contest of ages. By that
constitution and the laws authorized by it, this question must be determined."
"Time has proven the discernment of our ancestors; for even these
provisions , expressed in such plain English words, that it would seem
the ingenuity of man could not evade them, are now, after the lapse of
more than seventy years, sought to be avoided. Those great and
good men foresaw that troublous times would arise, when rulers and
people would become restive under restraint , and seek by sharp and
decisive measures to accomplish ends deemed just and proper; and that the
principles of constitutional liberty would be in peril unless established
by irrepealable law. The history of the world had
taught them that what was done in the past might be attempted in the future. The
Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally in war
and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection all classes of men,
at all times , and under all circumstances. No doctrine involving more
pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than that any of its
provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
Such a doctrine leads to anarchy or despotism, but the theory of necessity
on which it is based is false; for the government within the constitution, has
all the powers granted to it which are necessary to preserve its existence, as
has been happily proved by the result of the great effort to throw off its just
authority." "It is claimed that martial law
covers with its broad mantle the proceedings of this military commission. The
proposition is this: That in a time of war the commander of an armed force (if
in his opinion the exigencies of the country demand it , and of which he is to
judge), has the power, within the lines of his military district , to suspend
all civil rights, and their remedies, and subject citizens as well as soldiers
to the rule of his will; and in the exercise of his lawful authority can not be
restrained , except by his superior officer or the President of the United
States . If this position is sound to the
extent claimed, then when war exists, foreign or domestic, and the country is
subdivided into military departments for mere convenience, the commander of one
of them can, if he chooses, within the limits, on the plea of necessity, with
the approval of the excutive, substitute military force for and the exclusion of
the laws, and punish all persons as he thinks right and proper, without fixed or
certain rules. The statement of this proposition shows its importance; for, if
true, Republican government is a failure, and there is an end to liberty
regulated by law. Martial law, established on such a basis destroys every
guarantee of the Constitution and effectually renders the military independent
of and superior to the civil power" ---- "The attempt to do which by king
of great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offense, that they assigned
it to the world as one of the causes which impelled them to declare their
independence. Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together;
the antagonism is irreconcilable and, in the conflict, one or the other must
perish. This nation, as experience has proved, can not always remain at peace,
and has no right to expect that it will always have wise and humane rulers,
sincerely attached to the principles of the constitution. Wicked men, ambitious
of power, with hatred of liberty and contempt of law, may fill the place once
occupied by Washington and Lincoln ; and if this right is conceded, and the
calamities of war again befall us, the dangers to human liberty are frightful to
contemplate." "? it follows, from what has been
said on this subject, that there are occasions when martial rule can properly be
applied. 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 actual 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. A 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." HOME BUILDING & LOAN ASS?N VS
BLAISDELL (1934); Mr. Chief Justice HUGHES : "Emergency does not create power.
Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions
imposed upon power granted or reserved. The constitution was adopted in a period
of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its
limitations of the power of the states were determined in the light of
emergency, and they are not altered by emergency. What power was thus granted and what limitations were
thus imposed are questions which have always been and always will be, the
subject of close examination under our constitutional
system. While emergency does not create
power, emergency may furnish the occasion for the exercise of
power." "Although an emergency may not
call into life a power which has never
lived, never the less, emergency may afford a reason for the exertion of a
living power already enjoyed." Wilson vs New, 243 U. S. 332,
348. But even the war power does not remove constitutional Limitations safeguarding essential liberties. SEE EX PARTE Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 120-127; U.S. v Russel l, 13 Wall. 623,627; Hamilton v Kentucky Distilleries & Warehouse Co., 251 U.S. 146, 155; U.S. v L Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81, 88. See also... -CHISOLM EXECUTOR VS GEORGIA, 2
DALL 419 (1793) ; -EX-PARTE MILLIGAN , 4 WALL 2
(1866); -HALE VS HINKEL 201 U.S. 43
(1906); -MYERS VS UNITED STATES (1926) 272
U.S. 52; -HOME BUILDING & LOAN
ASSOCIATION VS BLAISDELL (1934) 290 U.S. 398; -MURDOCK VS PENNSYLVANIA (1943)
319 U.S. 105; -WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF
EDUCATION VS BARNETTE (1943) 319 U.S. 624; -REID VS COVERT (1957) 357 U.S. 1;
-GRISWALD VS CONNECTICUT (1965)
381 U.S. 479; -MIRANDA VS ARIZONA (1966) 384
U.S. 436; -NEW YORK VS U.S. (1992) 505 U.S.
144. |