12-06-2021, 12:19 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 11:43 AM by jasper2408.)
This is not related to 2A but one of these days it might be since it was mentioned by the Blue State governors to try and take our guns because of the "Covid emergency". This case was actually started in Indiana back around the time of the civil war. It doesn't matter what the case was about as the final ruling covers all made up national emergencies that politicians can think up. (Correction: This does not cover state emergencies, only national emergencies). This is actual United States law that stands to this day.
This is apparently a clipping, where does it come from?
And what is section 98, and who is being quoted, especially in the second paragraph? This 2d paragraph can't be from 1866 since it mentions 50 states...
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"
12-06-2021, 04:35 AM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 11:54 AM by jasper2408.)
The first quote in the clip is from the transcript of the case but below, which is also from the transcript, seems to state it better.
Quote:We agree in the proposition that no department of the government of the United States-neither President, nor Congress, nor the Courts--possesses any power not given by the Constitution.
The two quotes at the bottom of the clip are from "16 American Jurisprudence 2d", which is a legal encyclopedia of United States law. I wasn't able to read those quotes to know what cases they came from.
The quotes from the clip pertains to the Federal government only.
Context and honesty are important, this is FaceBook crap that has spread like wildfire and not only taken completely out of context, it has been manipulated, as those words are not in the ruling.
Below is the actual text of the case, that was a case about a man who claimed he was imprisoned unlawfully in the State of Indiana. This case was not about the merits or not of martial law.
Quote: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, cannot 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 his limits, on the plea of necessity, with the approval of the Executive, substitute military force for and to 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 of 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 the King of Great Britain was deemed by our fathers such an offence 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 {125} together; the antagonism is irreconcilable, and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish.
This nation, as experience has proved, cannot 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. If our fathers had failed to provide for just such a contingency, they would have been false to the trust reposed in them. They knew the history of the world told them the nation they were founding, be its existence short or long, would be involved in war; how often or how long continued human foresight could not tell, and that unlimited power, wherever lodged at such a time, was especially hazardous to freemen. For this and other equally weighty reasons, they secured the inheritance they had fought to maintain by incorporating in a written constitution the safeguards which time had proved were essential to its preservation. Not one of these safeguards can the President or Congress or the Judiciary disturb, except the one concerning the writ of habeas corpus.
It is essential to the safety of every government that, in a great crisis like the one we have just passed through, there should be a power somewhere of suspending the writ of habeas corpus. In every war, there are men of previously good character wicked enough to counsel their fellow-citizens to resist the measures deemed necessary by a good government to sustain its just authority and overthrow its enemies, and their influence may lead to dangerous combinations. In the emergency of the times, an immediate public investigation according to law may not be possible, and yet the period to the country may be too imminent to suffer such persons to go at large. Unquestionably, there is then an exigency which demands that the government, if it should see fit in the exercise of a proper discretion to make arrests, should not be required to produce the persons arrested {126} in answer to a writ of habeas corpus. The Constitution goes no further. It does not say, after a writ of habeas corpus is denied a citizen, that he shall be tried otherwise than by the course of the common law; if it had intended this result, it was easy, by the use of direct words, to have accomplished it. The illustrious men who framed that instrument were guarding the foundations of civil liberty against the abuses of unlimited power; they were full of wisdom, and the lessons of history informed them that a trial by an established court, assisted by an impartial jury, was the only sure way of protecting the citizen against oppression and wrong. Knowing this, they limited the suspension to one great right, and left the rest to remain forever inviolable. But it is insisted that the safety of the country in time of war demands that this broad claim for martial law shall be sustained. If this were true, it could be well said that a country, preserved at the sacrifice of all the cardinal principles of liberty, is not worth the cost of preservation. Happily, it is not so.
It will be borne in mind that this is not a question of the power to proclaim martial law when war exists in a community and the courts and civil authorities are overthrown. Nor is it a question what rule a military commander, at the head of his army, can impose on states in rebellion to cripple their resources and quell the insurrection. The jurisdiction claimed is much more extensive. The necessities of the service during the late Rebellion required that the loyal states should be placed within the limits of certain military districts and commanders appointed in them, and it is urged that this, in a military sense, constituted them the theater of military operations, and as, in this case, Indiana had been and was again threatened with invasion by the enemy, the occasion was furnished to establish martial law. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. If armies were collected in Indiana, they were to be employed in another locality, where the laws were obstructed and the national authority disputed. On her soil there was no hostile foot; if once invaded, that invasion was at an end, and, with {127} it, all pretext for martial law. Martial law cannot arise from a threatened invasion. The necessity must be actual and present, the invasion real, such as effectually closes the courts and deposes the civil administration.
It is difficult to see how the safety for the country required martial law in Indiana. If any of her citizens were plotting treason, the power of arrest could secure them until the government was prepared for their trial, when the courts were open and ready to try them. It was as easy to protect witnesses before a civil as a military tribunal, and as there could be no wish to convict except on sufficient legal evidence, surely an ordained and establish court was better able to judge of this than a military tribunal composed of gentlemen not trained to the profession of the law.
It follows from what has been said on this subject that there are occasions when martial rule can be properly 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 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. Because, during the late Rebellion, it could have been enforced in Virginia, where the national authority was overturned and the courts driven out, it does not follow that it should obtain in Indiana, where that authority was never disputed and justice was always administered. And so, in the case of a foreign invasion, martial rule may become a necessity in one state when, in another, it would be "mere lawless violence."
12-06-2021, 01:18 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 01:37 PM by jasper2408.)
HKGuns Wrote:Context and honesty are important, this is FaceBook crap that has spread like wildfire and not only taken completely out of context, it has been manipulated, as those words are not in the ruling.
Below is the actual text of the case, that was a case about a man who claimed he was imprisoned unlawfully in the State of Indiana. This case was not about the merits or not of martial law.
The case was about whether the military(Federal government) had the right to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus(make up an emergency to suit their needs) in a state that was not under seige while the state courts were intact. What was decided was that the government could not just make up emergencies to suit their needs. The guy was guilty as sin and the military sentenced him to hang but the SCOTUS overruled his verdict as unconstitutional and he was released. Whether the state recharged him or not I do not know.
All of the text that you are claiming not to be from the document at the beginning of the clip are in the SCOTUS document that I referenced, which is the actual text from the court decision and is over 140 pages long. That text is stating what rights the government has when it pertains to the military and there are 3 instances that are stated in the decision, which is the text at the beginning of the clip. My quote was from pages 136-137 of the ruling. Maybe the people on Facebook should do more research so they can actually know what they are talking about.
Just to add: One of the lefty news services claim that they tried to find any evidence of the ruling I stated in the document and couldn't. All I can say to that is they didn't look very hard.
jasper2408 Wrote:The case was about whether the military(Federal government) had the right to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus in a state that was not under seige while the state courts were intact. What was decided was that the government could not just make up emergencies to suit their needs. The guy was guilty as sin and the military sentenced him to hang but the SCOTUS overruled his verdict as unconstitutional and he was released. Whether the state recharged him or not I do not know.
All of the text that you are claiming not to be from the document at the beginning of the clip are in the SCOTUS document that I referenced, which is the actual text from the court decision and is over 140 pages long. My quote was from pages 136-137 of the ruling. Maybe the people on Facebook should do more research so they can actually know what they are talking about.
HKG:
How about going into this and citing the parts that support your argument?
The last paragraph seems to support Jasper very clearly.
jasper2408 Wrote:The case was about whether the military(Federal government) had the right to declare martial law and suspend habeas corpus(make up an emergency to suit their needs) in a state that was not under seige while the state courts were intact. What was decided was that the government could not just make up emergencies to suit their needs. The guy was guilty as sin and the military sentenced him to hang but the SCOTUS overruled his verdict as unconstitutional and he was released. Whether the state recharged him or not I do not know.
...
I located this decision and read a lot of it, well not all but a good portion. And I don't do Fakebook so I don't know what or how this is being bandied about on there, nor care about that much. the decision does seem to lay out what Jasper talks about (quote above) above, however there are some real caveats that factor in when applying it to today (fortunately or unfortunately as the case may be).
1. The country had just emerged from the Civil War and while Indiana (my home state btw) was invaded, it was not under that at the time of his arrest nor was any of it under enemy hands with courts closed down. So all of that had a big impact on everyone's thinking in 1866, some for good, some for not so good. By the accounts I read, the guy was a scumbag but unjustly tried in a military court and deprived of constitutional rights.
2. The Dimms and hidnbidin/garland et al don't seem to feel any real need to actually adhere to the law or Constitution.
3. I haven't done any research on whether/when martial law can be declared by law, as modified from 1866-today.
4. The Supreme Court back then was a "strict constructionist" on the Constitution as it should be, but lots of courts today are not.
5. The case most specifically begins with a military arrest, so it might not be correct to say "Military(federal government)".
6. I don't know if the decision handles whether a person could be arrested/habeus-withheld for some indefinite period of time, just not brought to trial... particularly by non-military law enforcement. Not saying this would be right or even justified, just that this case began with a military arrest. But in the decision's terms, cancelling habeus is severely limited under some specific circumstances, two of which are that the territory is at war/in control of enemy forces and the US courts are closed down.... But refer to #2 above also!
But I do think it could be of some value if/when an unjust "martial law" might get imposed...
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"
12-06-2021, 03:31 PM (This post was last modified: 12-06-2021, 03:45 PM by jasper2408.)
Here is a link that has the whole case. There are page numbers inside the text so you can keep track of where you are at. I did not try and download the .pdf file.
This case came about because the military said that Indiana was under martial law at the time and Abraham Lincoln(Federal government) suspended habeas corpus for this case and state even though the state was not under siege by the Confederates. So both the military and the Federal government was told to go pound sand with this decision. What came out of this case was that the Federal government doesn't have the power to make up an emergency to fit there needs. This case did not affect the Martial Law or suspension of habeas corpus in the south after the civil war because that was considered a land under siege.
The most recent court decision that comes to mind that might be related to this is the one where the Biden Vax mandate got struck down because the President
cannot make up laws on a federal government perceived emergency and that the constitution does not give him the power to do what they tried to do. It will be interesting to see when this hits the SCOTUS, if it does, to see what reason they give for their decision.
