Q asks, "Under what article can the President impose MI take over investigations for the 3 letter agencies? What conditions must present itself?"
People like to say Military Tribunals are for the military personnel and can't be used against civilians. You would be mistaken.
“Can military law apply to civilians?” The short answer is yes, but only under special circumstances."
As we continue to read here, those circumstances would be if President Trump signed the Insurrection Act.
https://www.lawsuitlegal.com/military-law/can-civilians-be-tried-in-military-court.php
The Insurrection Act is a law while "martial law" is a concept that doesn't have a legal definition in the U.S. "It's not enshrined anywhere," said Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a law professor at the University of Dayton.
Generally, martial law means that the military takes over civilian control of the government, whereas the Insurrection Act applies to specific instances of rebellion or refusal to uphold the law and requires a state's National Guard or the U.S. military to intervene.
Looking at the section above it says, "Insurrection Act applies to specific instances of rebellion or refusal to uphold the law and requires a state's National Guard or the U.S. military to intervene.
On January 6th, there was a refusal to uphold the law. The law broken would be refusing to look at alternate delegates. This is what the Brunson Supreme Court case is based on.
Also said above, "Requires National Guard to intervene"
When did the National Guard arrive to DC? On the evening of Jan 6th.
https://people.com/politics/national-guard-arrives-on-scene-at-u-s-capitol/
For Trump to initiate the Insurrection act, he must give a proclamation to disperse.
Here is his proclamation.
https://twitter.com/munson_fletcher/status/1604911237896491008
THE ROLE OF MILITARY TRIBUNALS UNDER THE LAW OF WAR
Go to page 7.
Under Article 2 of the Uniform Code, a “declared war” is necessary for a “time of war” to exist (which would then justify the trial of civilians by general court-martial)
https://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/international/volume24n1/documents/1-14.pdf
Here, President Trump calls himself a war time President, "In a true sense, We Are At War". This is a war declaration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOe4Ksoa5bk
"Military authority takes over civilian rule upon the declaration of martial law. As a result, the military holds immense power to run essential branches of the State, including the police, courts, and legislature or any lawmaking body."
It does not matter what the committee investigating Jan. 6 finds. The recommended criminal charges going to the DOJ against President Donald Trump are null and void. The marker that pushes the military to step forward may be the attempt to arrest President Trump.
We have been waiting for Durham to issue his findings. If we are under martial law, he most likely handed his findings to a military tribunal. Durham just gathered the evidence; military tribunals will prosecute the guilty. Would it make any sense for Durham to hand his recommended criminal charges to the DOJ? At this stage of the movie, the military has overruled the DOJ's authority.
Elon is releasing evidence that solidifies the Durham's special counsel findings. The FBI colluded with the DNC's fake Russia collusion story (Durham) and now the FBI colluded social networking sites to infringe our rights and manipulate the outcome of our 2020 election. (Musk)
You can bet your sweet little ass Trump signed the Insurrection Act on January 6th. We are under martial law, just wait for it, its coming.
Remember this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YnMaAsiXIo
Have a Merry Christmas my frens!!!
WWG1WGA!!!
I am not so sure he signed anything. The POTUS has a right and duty to defend US. It is explicitly stated that if the US is most obviously at war the Commander in Chief has no requirement to inform or request permission from Congress to wage war.
There was never a need for approval.
In cases of invasion, insurrection and rebellion, POTUS doesn't need any permission from Congress to exercise command over regular US military forces. Prior to there being much of a regular standing army, reliance had to be on the Milita. Under the original Milita Acts, Congressionally approved statutes which from the beginning were to an extent unconstitutional power grabs by the Legislative to restrict the Executive, POTUS could call up the Militia without a declaration of war from Congress. See Washington, Lincoln and Grant as examples. Again this of course only applies to the Militia (filled out by state militias), not regular military.
As for the "insurrection act", which properly we're talking about 10 USC Ch. 13... like with references to the ECA 1887, the acts are now inapplicable as they've been superseded by similar and at times verbatim codified statutes... §251 deals with insurrection, which requires a request from the state governor or legislature for POTUS to send aid. However §252 deals with rebellion and requires no such request be made:
It would also seem that the syntax differentiates between "Militia of any state" and "such of the armed forces" as distinct entities. This view is affirmed by §253:
Let's continue...
And the key to all of this here, is the question of WHO determines when there is a state of invasion, insurrection or rebellion? Not Congress, but POTUS. Congress has the power to declare war on another nation, but repelling invasion is an act of defense, and suppression of insurrection and rebellion an act of law enforcement. And HOW is such a state declared? Let's continue to §254:
Did POTUS Trump do this? You betcha.
Congress is not the Executive. They might pass legislation to appropriate funding for the armed forces and Militia, but they don't enforce the law, not conduct war. That authority lies with the Executive and ultimately POTUS alone.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution
War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. Congress only has authority to declare war, that is, to initiate war. Once war has already been initiated by a foreign power (invasion... or appropriately applied in the modern sense, "attacked") or domestically (insurrection and rebellion), then the state of war already exists, triggering POTUS' war powers.
Separation of powers. If Congress thinks that POTUS acted so unlawfully in a determination that war exists and subsequent efforts to prosecute it, then they should use their actual authority to impeach and remove POTUS. But Congress can't invent powers for themselves.
Thanks for the replies filled with the knowledge.
Not that one, this one:
Campbell v. Clinton, 203 F.3d 19 (D.C. Cir. 2000)
"Congress has a broad range of legislative authority it can use to stop a President's war making, * * * under [Raines] congressmen may not challenge the President's war-making powers in federal court." Id. at 11a (citation omitted).
and
Judge Randolph also concluded that petitioners lack standing to sue. Pet. App. 24a-34a. He explained that petitioners' votes against a declaration of war were not deprived of legal effect, since they served to deny the President various powers that are available only "in time of war." Id. at 26a-29a. Judge Randolph further observed that petitioners' "real complaint is not that the President ignored their votes" but "that he ignored the War Powers Resolution," and that petitioners' theory of standing would logically apply whenever a President is alleged to have acted in violation of a federal statute. Id. at 30a. Judge Randolph found that asserted basis for standing to be "highly problematic, not only because the principle is unconfined but also because it raises very serious separation-of-powers concerns." Ibid.
More importantly, concurring opinion by D.C. Circuit Judge Laurence H. Silberman:
Judge Silberman and Judge Tatel filed separate concurring opinions. Pet. App. 14a-21a, 45a-54a. Judge Silberman stated that "no one" is able "to challenge a President's arguably unlawful use of force," because courts "lack judicially discoverable and manageable standards" for addressing whether a President unlawfully used force. Id. at 14a (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Judge Tatel explained that he did "not share [Judge Silberman's] view that the case poses a nonjusticiable political question." Id. at 45a. He agreed, however, that petitioners lack standing to sue. Ibid.