I saw a few people making some posts about 71 US .2 and Section 98, went digging around. Found some very heartening info that I'll post here. In short, from an 1866 SCOTUS case, 71 US .2 Ex parte Milligan, it was ruled that the Constitution cannot be suspended entirely and that martial law shall only extend to habeas corpus, and further shall only extend for such a time until the normal courts may return to regular hearings. Additionally, it was ruled that martial law does not give the military the ability to try civilians in military courts, because the civilian courts are assumed to have the ability to return to normal service in the future.
Very fun reading here: https://archive.md/O8v8f
They also cite American Jurisprudence 2d, section 98.
Something that caught my eye that may be a good read for many people on here is the ruling from Ex parte Milligan, seeing as it's never been overturned. I'll put a few excerpts, but also the link. The case ends and the Official Ruling is delivered in sections 426-493. The Dissenting Opinion begins in Section 494. https://m.openjurist.org/71/us/2
But Section 473 is where things get really interesting.
All other persons, citizens of states where the courts are open, if charged with crime, are guaranteed the inestimable privilege of trial by jury.
The ruling specifically disregards that the courts be ignored or denied their jobs when "the passions of men are aroused" or "the restraints of law are weakened".
Section 476 goes on to speak about what a country governed by unrestricted Martial Law would entail, and why it's restricted so that Commanders and Presidents cannot impede and punish citizens at will.
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.
In Section 477, they speak to the fact that the Founders knew that we would see war, and furthermore they knew that evil men may indeed gain access to the powers delegated to the government.
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.
In Section 478, they defend why the government has the ability to detain/arrest dangerous people without the writ of habeas corpus under martial law.
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.
But 479 is the real kicker, here.
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.
Martial law cannot be declared from a threatened invasion. The courts and civil administration must be closed for martial laws to be engaged.
There's a ton of incredible stuff in this never overturned ruling, but that is the big boom. That was the keeper. The first question of this case was whether Martial Law could apply to Milligan in a time of peace, and this never overturned ruling declared that Martial Law may never apply while the civilian courts are open.
So, the reason for this dig, i think a lot of you may have figured out:
-
Why did [they] want to close the country so badly? Who were the targets then?
-
How many times and how many people have violated this case's precedent?
-
Head back to that first article, American Jurisprudence. Anyone who ever supported, aided, voted for, engaged with, comforted, or otherwise enabled this ruling to be broken engaged in war against the US, her Constitution, and her People. This includes Congress, the Judiciary, and even the Executive. What if every court had engaged in this behavior before? Including the FISA courts? Would they all have to close? Where would you try the cases? What precedent would make it legal?
This one. Enjoy the show.
I won't pretend to be a scholar on the issue, but I've done more than a fair amount of study both formal and informal on the law and Constitution, and I do love reading through cases, precedents, and jurisprudence. So, that in mind, I am not a lawyer, and even if I were, I am certainly not the definitive source here.
However, here's my take. When the courts are open, civilian courts always get the first swing at a case where they have jurisdiction. You're always tried in the lowest court possible for your case, and you appeal your way up through the system, thus giving the defendant the maximum chance to provide reasonable doubt or disprove the state's case. To the point further, civilians are never tried in the military courts, where such a robust set of appeals and extra chances don't exist, except in very specific circumstances which are extremely dire to the United States (in the case of Parte Ex Milligan, he fought against the Union and did not meet the requirements, to give you an idea of the height of these reqs).
The Military must have a fast, efficient, and locked down methodology to their courts that focuses on factual guilt and whether the court/command/admirals feel the defendant should be punished in respect for what occurred. This is nothing like the civilian courts, where the primary focus is on the preservation of the defendant's rights and justice as viewed by your peers being served (jury of your peers, objections in courts, Constitutional protections, etc.). When one joins the Military, they temporarily resign these rights for their service term. Civilians have signed over no such rights.
In regards to the plans of the Cabal, my best guess is that they intended to revoke the protections of the lower courts by using the "threat" of Covid and War to close the country, the courts, and the civil administration of the States. This would have satisfied all Constitutional precedent and allowed them to declare full martial law with little or no pushback, and worse while yielding the Military and SCOTUS no openings to object (if they weren't packed out with corrupt justices by then).
To the tune of using federal and military courts today versus the Cabal, there have long been precedents backed by the States themselves for cases which exceed their power and jurisdiction. Cases like Treason, which you mentioned. But also cases like interstate issues, backed by the Interstate clauses, and cases of exigent circumstances and immediate and large-scale threats to the United States (terrorism, sedition, conspiracy, mass destruction). In these cases, not only is the precedent set for civilians to be tried directly by the federal courts, because no single state can claim jurisdiction, but the States have freely given the government the ability to do so either in the original ratification of the Constitution or in subsequent years voted via their legislators.
To sum it up, we were saved when she lost in 2016. Nothing Can Stop What Is Coming.
Also, great timing today with the Durham Sussman indictment. Sept 16. 916 | 619. https://qalerts.app/?n=619
Check my comment history for a full deep dive a post or two back.
Thanks for the reply. I can see Ex Parte Milligan being a serious threat to us if the Hillary won scenario to were to play out. Of course, at the moment we have the Briben won scenario -- for as long as it lasts.
Q said military tribunals were the way. Reynolds v. US gave the go-ahead for civilians to be tried by military courts, which seems on point for the good guys prosecuting the bad guys.
Ex Parte Milligan might come into play (good going after bad) if somehow the courts are declared as good as shut down due to corruption. It does not seem like that is the direction of things at the moment, though.
If nothing else, Milligan reminds us that fundamental rights "Trump" everything else -- at least, that's how it is supposed to work.
I want to switch gears to a different legal subject, as long as we are having the discussion (in this thread that probably nobody is paying attention to anymore).
See my next post.
I'm not sure that Reynolds vs US is the precedent you mean, but there are some cases outside of martial law where civilians can be tried in military courts. They're rare, and you've got to be pretty much freebasing Traitor coke to get there (unless you work for the military as a civilian contractor, then it's a little easier, but they sign some pretty hefty paperwork just like a serviceman does).
One precedent does come to mind, though. POWs. Q kept hinting (or outright mentioning) the Law of War and 11.3 throughout the posts. Frankly, if the military was viewing the Cabal's actions as a hostile takeover of the US, then their capture could escalate them to a Prisoner of War status in some cases, no martial law required.
Or, you know, 10 days of darkness. Keep some Emergency Mac n Cheese around.