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!!!
The Constitution does not contemplate martial law.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Would not the men who took an oath to defend our nation be the appropriate team to do this?
That’s not from the Constitution - ie the document that legal governs the functioning of our nation and protects us (legally) against government abuse, and which sets out sacrosanct protections all citizens have regarding criminal proceedings, which does not contemplate military tribunals against American citizens.
Its from the Declaration of Independence
https://declaration.fas.harvard.edu/resources/text
Are you saying every law, regulation, Act and rule we live under today comes from the constitution?
Here is a article from Militery.com talking about the 6 times Martial Law Was Declared and the Constitution Suspended in the United States
https://www.military.com/history/6-times-martial-law-was-declared-and-constitution-suspended-united-states.html
I assume you consider these unconstitutional miscarriages of justice.
Should we throw away any and all means to stop the communist regime and just live with the whatever it is that they have planned for us?
Are you anti second amendment also?
All of those examples are unconstitutional, as noted.
Am I anti second amendment? You’re completely missing the point - I am strongly pro-Constitution. One of the main reasons to declare “martial law” is the limit the right for citizens to bear arms, so you’re anti second amendment, if anyone.
I believe in the right to free speech, to bear arms, and all other rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I believe the entire point is that the Government can just declare “martial law” and throw those rights out the window.