11.22.2.2 Methods of Levying Contributions. No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a “Commander-in-chief.”437 The term
“Commander-in-chief” may be understood to refer to the highest military officer charged with
the administration of the occupied territory.
The rest are from footnotes
J.A.G.S. TEXT NO. 11, LAW OF BELLIGERENT OCCUPATION 182 (“Seemingly the term ‘commander in chief' refers to the highest military officer charged with the administration of the occupied territory.”)
And
HAGUE IV REG. art. 51 (“No contribution shall be collected except under a written order, and on the responsibility of a Commander-in-chief.”).
And
“The person who acted in the character of collector in this instance, acted as such under the authority of the military commander, and in obedience to his
orders; and the duties he exacted, and the regulations he adopted, were not those prescribed by law, but by the
President in his character of commander-in-chief."
So I don't see anything here that contradicts the plain language of the Constitution.
The Law of War Manual isn't about US command structure or military strategy, it's about the general application of war between sovereign states.
Military jurisdiction supersedes the civilian federal govt, and the whole basis of devolution theory is that the President has extraordinary powers as CiC when responding to an act of war. That's all I'm saying. Trump used "extraordinary powers" to circumvent the normal Constitutional process and enact CoG under limited martial law, or something to that effect. Obviously the real info would be classified so that's why we're all guessing.
The UCMJ is very clear who is subject to it. I am not subject to military law and I don't plan on joining the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the other 8 categories of people subject to the UCMJ.
I've looked into the devolution thing and it takes true bits like this
the President has extraordinary powers as CiC when responding to an act of war.
And then stretches that truth to things like this
Trump used "extraordinary powers" to circumvent the normal Constitutional process and enact CoG under limited martial law, or something to that effect.
We are not under martial law. Our government is continuing normally.
I'm not talking about the UCMJ. That governs the military itself.
I'm talking about the fact that the Continental Marines and Continental Army existed BEFORE the Constitution, and the military/militia at that time secured the land for the States to exist first, which then formed the federal jurisdiction under the Constitution. The military precedes any civilian governments as an institution.
The whole world is under admiralty (military) jurisdiction by default.
If all governments collapsed the military (people with guns) would automatically run everything.
Question: has CoG ever been enacted, or designed to be enacted, via congress of 'normal constitutional process'?
If LoW manual applies only to war between sovereign states (I agree it does), then how does it spell out in detail that "Trump could still be CiC while a foreign puppet occupies the public/civilian seat of power"?
Surely it might spell out how the US CIC can act despite a foreign puppet doing [x] (which is related to the relations between two powers at war with each other), but not how DJT would still be CiC under CoG (which is related only to internal US law and structures).
So which is it? Do you see the distinction? Serious question.
Question: has CoG ever been enacted, or designed to be enacted, via congress of 'normal constitutional process'?
I don't quite understand your question, but COG is fully an executive function, my understanding is it derives from the War Powers Act. Congress is too slow and so the president (in his capacity as CiC) can do basically anything, whatever is necessary to respond to an imminent threat.
If LoW manual applies only to war between sovereign states (I agree it does), then how does it spell out in detail that "Trump could still be CiC while a foreign puppet occupies the public/civilian seat of power"?
LIEBER CODE art. 1 (“A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest. The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.”).
In this case, Nov 3, 2020 was the "invasion" and martial law began at that time. This would have prompted a military response and yes it's speculation as to what exactly occurred, but the only explanation that makes sense is Devolution, i.e. military action to respond to the threat. As far as whether DJT is IN FACT CiC or just in an advisory role right now I think it's irrelevant and unknowable and I don't really see the point in arguing about such a trivial point.
If you don't understand the question or direction of the discussion, no big deal. However, characterizing this as 'arguing about' such a trivial point misses the real point, imo.
I hesitate to elaborate, as I've already done so and you seem to dodge all the references to your own arguments and queries related thereto. Inability to think critically about one's own hypothesis from any angle other than one's own is a common characteristic of highly intellectualized theorizing.
No matter. If you didn't get it, you didn't get it.
It's worth noting that the LoW Chap 11 here is referring to a CiC as the "highest military officer charged with the administration of the occupied territory", in other words, the commander in chief of the occupying forces.
Eg. MacArthur would have been CiC in Japan from 1945-1950, as the US forces at the time were occupying Japan.
Unless I misunderstood it, the assertions (or part assertions) in the interview in OP are asserting that Biden admin is occupying DC (or US?) on behalf of a foreign power.
In such a case, DJT would not be the CiC that Chap 11 is referring to.
Unless of course, the OP is asserting that the US is under Military Occupation by the US military. But again, that makes no sense as the US military serves the US sovereignty, and cannot be an occupying force outside of DC. It would be martial law, NOT military occupancy.
Or is the OP asserting that the US military is occupying DC, a non-US state / territory? That might make sense, but then the US military is the belligerent occupier. So....... ???
The only examples in Chapter 11 is this one
The rest are from footnotes
And
So I don't see anything here that contradicts the plain language of the Constitution.
The Law of War Manual isn't about US command structure or military strategy, it's about the general application of war between sovereign states.
Military jurisdiction supersedes the civilian federal govt, and the whole basis of devolution theory is that the President has extraordinary powers as CiC when responding to an act of war. That's all I'm saying. Trump used "extraordinary powers" to circumvent the normal Constitutional process and enact CoG under limited martial law, or something to that effect. Obviously the real info would be classified so that's why we're all guessing.
It absolutely does not.
See this chapter https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/802
Here's the simplified version https://www.liveabout.com/uniform-code-of-military-justice-ucmj-3354207
The UCMJ is very clear who is subject to it. I am not subject to military law and I don't plan on joining the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration or the other 8 categories of people subject to the UCMJ.
I've looked into the devolution thing and it takes true bits like this
And then stretches that truth to things like this
We are not under martial law. Our government is continuing normally.
I'm not talking about the UCMJ. That governs the military itself.
I'm talking about the fact that the Continental Marines and Continental Army existed BEFORE the Constitution, and the military/militia at that time secured the land for the States to exist first, which then formed the federal jurisdiction under the Constitution. The military precedes any civilian governments as an institution.
The whole world is under admiralty (military) jurisdiction by default.
If all governments collapsed the military (people with guns) would automatically run everything.
It's the highest jurisdiction there is.
So what?
Lots of things existed before the Constitution.
You know didn't exist at the time of the Constitution? The Continental Army.
Because,
I used to have lunch in the place where George Washington said goodbye to his men.
When ever you go to court ... carefully check the symbols .... you might be surprised.
Question: has CoG ever been enacted, or designed to be enacted, via congress of 'normal constitutional process'?
If LoW manual applies only to war between sovereign states (I agree it does), then how does it spell out in detail that "Trump could still be CiC while a foreign puppet occupies the public/civilian seat of power"?
Surely it might spell out how the US CIC can act despite a foreign puppet doing [x] (which is related to the relations between two powers at war with each other), but not how DJT would still be CiC under CoG (which is related only to internal US law and structures).
So which is it? Do you see the distinction? Serious question.
I don't quite understand your question, but COG is fully an executive function, my understanding is it derives from the War Powers Act. Congress is too slow and so the president (in his capacity as CiC) can do basically anything, whatever is necessary to respond to an imminent threat.
In this case, Nov 3, 2020 was the "invasion" and martial law began at that time. This would have prompted a military response and yes it's speculation as to what exactly occurred, but the only explanation that makes sense is Devolution, i.e. military action to respond to the threat. As far as whether DJT is IN FACT CiC or just in an advisory role right now I think it's irrelevant and unknowable and I don't really see the point in arguing about such a trivial point.
If you don't understand the question or direction of the discussion, no big deal. However, characterizing this as 'arguing about' such a trivial point misses the real point, imo.
I hesitate to elaborate, as I've already done so and you seem to dodge all the references to your own arguments and queries related thereto. Inability to think critically about one's own hypothesis from any angle other than one's own is a common characteristic of highly intellectualized theorizing.
No matter. If you didn't get it, you didn't get it.
It's worth noting that the LoW Chap 11 here is referring to a CiC as the "highest military officer charged with the administration of the occupied territory", in other words, the commander in chief of the occupying forces.
Eg. MacArthur would have been CiC in Japan from 1945-1950, as the US forces at the time were occupying Japan.
Unless I misunderstood it, the assertions (or part assertions) in the interview in OP are asserting that Biden admin is occupying DC (or US?) on behalf of a foreign power.
In such a case, DJT would not be the CiC that Chap 11 is referring to.
Unless of course, the OP is asserting that the US is under Military Occupation by the US military. But again, that makes no sense as the US military serves the US sovereignty, and cannot be an occupying force outside of DC. It would be martial law, NOT military occupancy.
Or is the OP asserting that the US military is occupying DC, a non-US state / territory? That might make sense, but then the US military is the belligerent occupier. So....... ???