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.