No. Incorrect. The President is the ultimate tribunal for the enforcement of the rules and regulations that Congress adopts for the government of the forces, and that are enforced through courts-martial. He is a civilian, and nothing changes that. The constitution is clear on this.
The President’s duties as Commander in Chief represent only a part of duties ex officio as Chief Executive [Article II, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution] and that the latter’s office is a civil office.
Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that ‘The President, [Vice President] and All Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ . . .
Lol no. Show me the law, with some precedent attached.
Petition of Right, 1628, provides that the common law knows no such thing as martial law; that is to say, martial law is not established by official authority of any sort, but arises from the nature of things, being the law of paramount necessity, leaving the civil courts to be the final judges of necessity.
No. Incorrect. The President is the ultimate tribunal for the enforcement of the rules and regulations that Congress adopts for the government of the forces, and that are enforced through courts-martial. He is a civilian, and nothing changes that. The constitution is clear on this.
The President’s duties as Commander in Chief represent only a part of duties ex officio as Chief Executive [Article II, sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution] and that the latter’s office is a civil office.
Article II, section 4 of the Constitution provides that ‘The President, [Vice President] and All Civil Officers of the United States shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.’ . . .
My response was to whether or not civilians could be court martialed. Thanks for the wall of text that is completely inapplicable. Dumb fuck
They don’t
Under martial law everyone is subject to the UCMJ.
Ok. Keep believing that.
Lol no. Show me the law, with some precedent attached.
Petition of Right, 1628, provides that the common law knows no such thing as martial law; that is to say, martial law is not established by official authority of any sort, but arises from the nature of things, being the law of paramount necessity, leaving the civil courts to be the final judges of necessity.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-2/clause-1/martial-law-and-constitutional-limitations