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.
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.
I answered your question so I don't know what you think I'm dodging or not thinking critically about.