It goes deeper than this. SCOTUS precedents regarding the Insurrection Act clearly define that both sides must acknowledge a rebellion or insurrection has occurred for the military to act (martial law and suspension of habeas corpus); however, the two sides do not need to agree on who is committing the insurrection/rebellion.
By making this declaration, President Trump fulfilled his side of the equation. By calling J6 an insurrection, the Dems and Cabal fulfilled theirs.
that both sides must acknowledge a rebellion or insurrection has occurred for the military to act
Neither of these links provide mention of "both sides" having to agree. Rather they reiterate that POTUS can unilaterally act. Unless I missed something?
The precedents you're looking for are mentioned in the cases cited by Moyer v Peabody. They relied on prior cases, but they reinforced them to be specific to martial law and the military's ability to act.
Does one of those cases supercede the unilateral aspect of POTUS decision for martial law? Because that's my understanding. Btw, your comment was very well informed, it seemed, I'm just looking for the primary source as I always do.
Specific aspects are reinforced from the various precedents mentioned in these cases, where the SCOTUS was clarifying things like "Previously this was applied to a natural disaster, but it applies to a rebellion as well".
However, when Q asked about the precedents that gave the president the ability to deploy the national guard and to declare martial law, they were referring to these precedents. This is the deepest reason behind J6 happening the way it did, and why this movie is playing out like it is. Edit: Also, when they said it must all be done legally.
Patriots Are Now In Control, and in ways we cannot predict but only translate afterwards.
Add to that the healthcare industry. That is what healthcare is now, an industry. It started to go downhill in the late 1980’s where the focus shifted from the patient to money.
It goes deeper than this. SCOTUS precedents regarding the Insurrection Act clearly define that both sides must acknowledge a rebellion or insurrection has occurred for the military to act (martial law and suspension of habeas corpus); however, the two sides do not need to agree on who is committing the insurrection/rebellion.
By making this declaration, President Trump fulfilled his side of the equation. By calling J6 an insurrection, the Dems and Cabal fulfilled theirs.
https://usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html
Ex Parte Milligan gives some great insights. So does Moyer vs Peabody. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moyer_v._Peabody
Enjoy, all!
Neither of these links provide mention of "both sides" having to agree. Rather they reiterate that POTUS can unilaterally act. Unless I missed something?
The precedents you're looking for are mentioned in the cases cited by Moyer v Peabody. They relied on prior cases, but they reinforced them to be specific to martial law and the military's ability to act.
Does one of those cases supercede the unilateral aspect of POTUS decision for martial law? Because that's my understanding. Btw, your comment was very well informed, it seemed, I'm just looking for the primary source as I always do.
Specific aspects are reinforced from the various precedents mentioned in these cases, where the SCOTUS was clarifying things like "Previously this was applied to a natural disaster, but it applies to a rebellion as well".
However, when Q asked about the precedents that gave the president the ability to deploy the national guard and to declare martial law, they were referring to these precedents. This is the deepest reason behind J6 happening the way it did, and why this movie is playing out like it is. Edit: Also, when they said it must all be done legally.
Patriots Are Now In Control, and in ways we cannot predict but only translate afterwards.
Add to that the healthcare industry. That is what healthcare is now, an industry. It started to go downhill in the late 1980’s where the focus shifted from the patient to money.