Looks like I was wrong about that. It took a while to find a clear discussion of the subject, but USConstitution.net summed it up. Martial law has been declared on a national level once, by Lincon in 1863. There have been several times when it's been declared at the local level by a state governor.
An interesting nuance of martial law is that military commanders, up to and including the Command in Chief, can be held accountable for their actions after martial law is ended. It strikes me that that's a strong incentive to prolong martial law as long as possible. Easy to get into that situation, difficult to get out of it. So while martial law may seem like a straightforward and obvious solution to an immediate crisis, it has dangerous implications for a free society and is not to be considered lightly.
Current Events » in reply to re: No paradox at all.
Ya got me
The whole thread (31 posts)
- David Neiwert: 'The political and the personal'
- Is he really so clueless?
- Oh, yeah. A call for conservative moderation, tolerance and civility from the "Smirking Chimp" web site. (n/t)