The military courts can arrest, bring evidence, hold trials and decide guilt or innocence. BUT any defendant judged guilty can appeal to SCOTUS, those same people who wouldn’t hear any of the election cases.
I wonder if they would then show the same level of disinterest and wash their hands of it especially if the big name traitors are convicted? Or will they suddenly have an uncharacteristic curiosity and concern about the rule of law? If that happens, look out and pray. They could prove to be the ultimate heroes or villains in this movie of movies. https://www.armfor.uscourts.gov/newcaaf/home.htm
Hat tip to Blacksmith 21 for the link
A military tribunal under martial law has no appeal process. The constitution is suspended under such circumstances (martial law means the suspension of civil authority and implementation of martial authority).
The normal (non-wartime) martial court has nothing to do with martial law. It is a military court where the defendant is a person in the military. In such a court there is an appeal path to SCOTUS.
A military tribunal is a martial authority court. The defendant in such a court is considered an enemy of the state, i.e. an enemy of the constitution, The defendant can be a civilian or otherwise. There is no appeal to that court.
Who has the sole power to declare war? POTUS might claim we're in a war but unless Congress declares it, a state of war doesn't exist. POTUS can claim a state of emergency but that has limitations. Martial Law does not cut out the Supreme Court from inserting itself, especially in cases where the civilian courts, including but not limited to the Supreme court are operable. Since Martial Law and the elimination of Habeas Corpus is so rare, the situations surrounding its use would be challenged and most likely taken up by the Supreme Court.
If 2020 had taught us anything it's that the unthinkable can and will happen. We have this white hat opinion of the Military but consider the Generals who were part of Trump's administration and were dismissed. Mcmaster, Kelly, Mattis all turned on Trump, all spoke ill of him in private and to the press. Conduct unbecoming and yet were any brought up on charges? Asking the military to step in under a state of emergency, make hundreds of arrests and to hold trials and executions is becoming a fantasy. We would all like to see that but neither Trump nor the military want to be seen as participating in a coup regardless of how evident the election was stolen. That's why Trump is making plans to support MAGA candidates in 2022 and run again for President in 2024.
It's becoming more and more evident that Biden has limited capacity for anything. It's a problem and I think the military is treating Biden much differently than they would a true sitting president. BUT, if something occurs that would trigger Martial Law, I seriously doubt the military will swoop down, make arrests and start executing non-military people without SCOTUS becoming involved.
In DC right now there exists a state of emergency. FEMA has full legal authority under such conditions to suspend the constitution (i.e. declare martial law). I am not saying that's the play, but it is legal and currently active.
Any other path to martial law would be considered a coup, but it is also a viable path and SCOTUS can say nothing. Well, they can complain all they want, but a coup is a coup and military control is absolute unless and until We The People fight them.
The most important point is that such a coup would still be constitutional, as the military swears to uphold the constitution, not the President. I.e. if they have evidence that suggests the President is acting against the constitution, that it meets some threshold of proof, and the rest of the system has failed to constitutionally resolve the issue, they are constitutionally bound to declare martial law and suspend the authority of the unconstitutional government until the constitutional crisis is resolved.
Our constitution is really difficult to subvert. Its probably the greatest document ever written by humankind.
show me case law that supports your assertion.
Which part?
FEMA's powers under conditions of a State of Emergency (as exists right now in DC) have been well known for a few years now. If you look it up, the information is everywhere. Here is a random link. I haven't read it so it may not be the best source, but look further if you wish.
Every oath, no matter the branch of service or rank begins this way. Some further swear to obey the President (depending on rank and branch) but in an oath the order is of primary importance. If you can't fulfill the whole oath (e.g. your oath to the Constitution and the President cannot both be followed simultaneously) your oath to the first listed wins. In all cases this is the Constitution of the United States. There is also no time limit in the oath. This is an oath for life.
Any other law is irrelevant, because the Constitution IS the law. If the President acts contrary to the Constitution (for example, by stealing an election) then any oaths to that president are null and void. The oath to the constitution must be followed.
Every member of the military is oath bound to uphold the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic. A President that has been proven to break his oath to the constitution is a domestic enemy (although in Biden's case, given the fact that DC is a foreign city-state he might be a foreign enemy?). If the rest of the systems put in place by the Constitution fail to bring this domestic enemy to justice, the military has no other path to uphold their oath than to take control of the government.
That’s the worst court in the world for people who fuck with America.
Please point to a reference for that. Show me a situation where martial law existed without a declaration of war that only congress can declare. Show me case law where martial law happened when there were functioning civilian courts.
Precedence is not law. Precedence is interpretation of law. Precedence can change from one court to another, or at the drop of a hat. Precedence is only important when making an argument. Legally its basically irrelevant.
What happens when the military "Has it all" that shows that a person installed as President stole the election (a direct violation of the Constitution)? What happens when no civilian court will properly adjudicate or even hear the case? Is that proof of a non-functioning civilian court? Are these not the conditions we are seeing right now? When these conditions are met, what other recourse does the military have to uphold their oath to the Constitution to protect it against domestic enemies? (In this case our entire government might be a foreign enemy, but that's not necessary for this argument and I am unsure of the veracity of that assertion).
When the system fails the Constitution, and the military has sufficient evidence that the system failed the Constitution, they have no recourse but to overthrow the domestic enemies that caused the failure. It is written into their oaths, it is written into their code of conduct, it is that body's entire purpose of existence.
Answer your own question, what does happen? Nothing has happened and my guess is we'll be still waiting during the elections of 2022 and 2024 for the military to do something. Do I think that's right? NO!! I wish to hell all the traitors were arrested immediately and all sent to military tribunals at GITMO. But with each passing day the likelihood of that happening diminishes. Nothing would please me more than to wake up tomorrow morning and hear that a massive operation is underway to arrest the traitors, pedos and free children from their captures. But with each passing day I'm disappointed.
In my opinion, Pence stopped the plan in its tracks and derailed the Trump train. The rest is history. What happened since that fateful day should be laid at the feet of the Democrats, RINOS and Mike Pence. He didn't show at CPAC did he?. How many people in Trump's inner circle turned out to be traitors and turncoats? Many still consider Trump the legitimate President. If true, who's the legitimate Vice President??
This is called "dooming." It is a fear based argument. It has nothing to do with what I said. It doesn't refute it. It doesn't provide a counter argument. Instead it ignores every point I made and tells me what you are feeling about the future.
What is your evidence for this statement? Because you don't see what you need to to believe it? Everyone goes through life with the smallest, tiniest picture of reality. We know nothing. You assume nothing is happening because you don't see it happening. That's fine. I can't prove to you things are happening, but I can give evidence.
There is so much more than this, but frankly, there isn't enough time to write the hundreds of pages required to let you know all I have seen to corroborate. To begin:
Everything you think you see is part of a show to wake up the masses and let the DC part of the Cabal bury themselves before the military steps in. Q told us it was a show, and Q told us the military was the only way. Everything going on corroborates those statements. Why do you not believe it? Look at all the evidence it is a show. There is so, so much. Again, too much to get in to right now, but let go of fear and your eyes will be opened. The evidence is everywhere.
Not dooming at all. I'm hopeful that the military will act and put the treasonous bastards and their accomplices in jail. I hope they liberate all the lost kids and execute their sick tormentors. I see that datefagging is pure hopium that leads to crashes afterward. I see the twisted logic that is used to try and explain away each expected action that doesn't happen. I'm simply making the rational observation that the more days that come and go and the closer to the next election we come, the less likely anything like that will happen. More importantly, if nothing happens but Trump gets pro MAGA people elected in 2022 including himself in 2024 we will see serious action. The gloves will be off and he'll be the counter-puncher everyone knows him to be.
What if some of the justices are the ones being tried in military tribunals?
My question exactly.
Kim Clement said that two Justices would step down in disgrace. Generally, I hard pass "prophets" but he did predict DJT's presidency as well as a period of two presidents. So just putting it out there.
BTW-- I think some of this "corruption" we're seeing from the SCOTUS is part of the act to show the world how corrupt the system is. IE Pence, Barr etc... IF the OP's scenario played out I think they would be at least forced to abide the law finally. (Some "black hats" may be actors.)
What if Kim Clement's "prophecies" were based on info that was fed to him? Weird way to get info to some people but Q in general has always been unconventional from the beginning.
Then they knew the intricacies of this plan and how it would pan out LONG ago..with so many variables and moving parts.
Project Looking Glass. Yup.
I like this. Just another wormhole for people to find Q and the plan "on their own". Makes sense why George News would link to Kim Clement as well.
Nope military tribunals have nothing at all to do with the SCOTUS.
SCOTUS has nothing to do with mil tribunals. Its one or the other. Not both.
No, SCOTUS has no jurisdiction in those cases.
Nah. Military has no jurisdiction over civil judicial branch. One or the other. Not both.
But military tribunals are the way forward. Roberts for sure will get one. And once those are done we will need new elections, since 80% of Congress will likely be at GITMO or facing a firing squad.
I just posted something like this on the last thread asking about it. The one thing is that SCOTUS would be possibly some of the ones locked up and a conflict of interest.it would be uncharted territory. It could be that only Thomas and Alito are the only ones left.
CAAF is the highest appellate court for military members tried under the UCMJ, which I don't believe is the same as martial law. Some UCMJ cases do make it up to SCOTUS (where they have the final say)
Awoke is not a word. Woke is not an adjective.
We need to stop promoting this “woke” nonsense. The only acceptable use is:
GET WOKE, GO BROKE
(for all the businesses out there with mask nazis and virtue signaling petty tyrants)
Past tense is “awakened”. No such word as “awoke”
I stand corrected. Never heard/seen it used before all this lunacy about “wokism”
You can't appeal to the SCOTUS as a military tribunal has no appeal process.