Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 9/19/2004 9:26:37 PM EST
The Constitution is suspended. Do the 'people' then fall under the UCMJ? If not, what would be the law of the land? It amazes me that the president can take away your Constitutional rights with the snap of a finger....

I remember reading something pre-Y2K where the tin foilers were saying that if something happens at 12:00am 1/1/01, slick Willie could declare Martial Law and stay prez until he decided he wanted to go... (Leaving GWB in the cold)...

How is it that a president can suspend the Constitution and stay in power? You would think the military would take control of the country wouldn't you? Or would the individual states (attempt to) take control of their residents via the Nat'l Guard, police, state troopers, etc?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 12:48:27 AM EST
I would be interested in hearing a response to this.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:04:07 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:06:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By Az_Redneck:
The Constitution is suspended. Do the 'people' then fall under the UCMJ? If not, what would be the law of the land? It amazes me that the president can take away your Constitutional rights with the snap of a finger....

I remember reading something pre-Y2K where the tin foilers were saying that if something happens at 12:00am 1/1/01, slick Willie could declare Martial Law and stay prez until he decided he wanted to go... (Leaving GWB in the cold)...

How is it that a president can suspend the Constitution and stay in power? You would think the military would take control of the country wouldn't you? Or would the individual states (attempt to) take control of their residents via the Nat'l Guard, police, state troopers, etc?



Lincoln did it. How did he stay in power? And, the sleazeball propagandists otherwise known as most teachers make a god out of his baboonness.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:07:36 AM EST
There are very good reasons to have Marshall Law.


Sometimes the masses NEED to be controlled.


Sgatr15
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:18:37 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:50:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
The Constitution was never 'suspended', even during the War Between The States.

Lincoln merely suspended parts of the Constitution, such as the writ of habeas corpus, IIRC.


What's a little Un-Constitutionalism now and then...between Republican Presidents?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:52:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By Az_Redneck:
The Constitution is suspended. Do the 'people' then fall under the UCMJ? If not, what would be the law of the land? It amazes me that the president can take away your Constitutional rights with the snap of a finger....

I remember reading something pre-Y2K where the tin foilers were saying that if something happens at 12:00am 1/1/01, slick Willie could declare Martial Law and stay prez until he decided he wanted to go... (Leaving GWB in the cold)...

How is it that a president can suspend the Constitution and stay in power? You would think the military would take control of the country wouldn't you? Or would the individual states (attempt to) take control of their residents via the Nat'l Guard, police, state troopers, etc?



In reality, martial law is a hard thing to sell to the people. Elections exist to create at least the veneer of legitimacy. An aspiring despot would impose martial law at his own peril since most dictators are taken out by their closest associates or bodyguards.

Plus, martial law cannot be sustained for very long as it begins to wear on people to have summary executions for minor infractions.

I don't see very many Americans enduring martial law. Hell, most people won't endure the rule of law to any degree. Been to an urban ghetto lately? There is 100% contempt for any law whatsoever.

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:54:46 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 3:55:09 AM EST by EricTheHun]
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:57:54 AM EST
It would be extraordinarilly difficult for our government to enforce martial law. Americans are the best armed people in the world, and while there are plenty of sheep, there are also alot of americans who are getting tired of being told what to do. martial law would probably be a prelude to a civil war, unless you could somehow convince the poeple it was in thier best interest.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:58:07 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
It sucked back then, but do you reasonably foresee this Republican President doing any such thing?

If you do, please speak up!


Three words: Campaign. Finance. Reform.

Thank you for that softball, ETH. Every good lawyer knows the #1 rule about asking questions.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:27:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
The Constitution was never 'suspended', even during the War Between The States.

Lincoln merely suspended parts of the Constitution, such as the writ of habeas corpus, IIRC.

Eric The(It'sTooEarlyForResearch)Hun



It's my understanding that the SCOTUS ruled that un-constitutional.
But,,, did they rule before or after the war ended?

Jay
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:50:29 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
There are very good reasons to have Marshall Law.


Sometimes the masses NEED to be controlled.


Sgatr15



[drunk chick from that video posted about a month ago] I don't need controlled [/BUUUUUUUUUUURP!]
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 4:58:37 AM EST

Originally Posted By Sawgunner101:
It would be extraordinarilly difficult for our government to enforce martial law. Americans are the best armed people in the world, and while there are plenty of sheep, there are also alot of americans who are getting tired of being told what to do. martial law would probably be a prelude to a civil war, unless you could somehow convince the poeple it was in thier best interest.



[Michael Moore]Like if there was a major terrorist attack?[/Michael Moore]
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:15:13 AM EST
Anyone know the in/outs of Martial Law?

I know they declared it once in my hometown after a hurricane. It was only for a day or so. Nobody out after dark. Limited access to the city, which was underwater nonetheless = no access anyway. I can't remember as I was young but......
.......is arming yourself still a 'right' under martial law, i.e., you are bugging out etc. (can you still pack? w/ a CHL/CCW? still in affect? ) I can see some questions come up and I could develop an urge to be armed to the teeth in a situation similar........
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:22:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By quijanos:
Anyone know the in/outs of Martial Law?

I know they declared it once in my hometown after a hurricane. It was only for a day or so. Nobody out after dark. Limited access to the city, which was underwater nonetheless = no access anyway. I can't remember as I was young but......
.......is arming yourself still a 'right' under martial law, i.e., you are bugging out etc. (can you still pack? w/ a CHL/CCW? still in affect? ) I can see some questions come up and I could develop an urge to be armed to the teeth in a situation similar........




The answer is no. If you look under state laws, you'll find that being armed during Marshall Law is a no-no.

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:22:44 AM EST
I applaud the original post author for spelling "martial" correctly.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:24:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I applaud the original post author for spelling "martial" correctly.


No kidding. Sometimes I wonder if this sight is being overrun by 4th graders.

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 6:12:49 AM EST
Suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is not per se unconstitutional. The Constitution expressly contemplates its suspension: "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. "

No president has the authority to stay in office by declaring martial law. Such an act would be a blatant violation of the Constitution, and would clearly justify armed rebellion. Note that the election of 1864 proceeded, despite the fact that half the country was at war with the other half. The supreme court did declare Lincoln's detention of an individual without recourse to habeas relief illegal (actually, it granted a writ despite Lincoln's suspension of the writ) but it was without effect and probably wrong, given that a rebellion was afoot.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 6:23:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 6:25:15 AM EST by quijanos]

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By quijanos:
Anyone know the in/outs of Martial Law?

I know they declared it once in my hometown after a hurricane. It was only for a day or so. Nobody out after dark. Limited access to the city, which was underwater nonetheless = no access anyway. I can't remember as I was young but......
.......is arming yourself still a 'right' under martial law, i.e., you are bugging out etc. (can you still pack? w/ a CHL/CCW? still in affect? ) I can see some questions come up and I could develop an urge to be armed to the teeth in a situation similar........




The answer is no. If you look under state laws, you'll find that being armed during Marshall Martial Law is a no-no.




fixed it for ya
but,
I'm with you bro, I think I remember it that way, but also remember my dad and everyone else packing shotguns ( ala looters, etc) In a case like this you've gotta be able to defend yourself (at home in general) but on the move in light of the fact that you can't stay put (too dangerous/tidal surge etc)....
Any thoughts?
What if you are just leaving because otherwise you'll have to tread water? If you have to leave and in my case, I'll be emptying the contents of my safe as some of the fist items to take with me........
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 7:52:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I applaud the original post author for spelling "martial" correctly.


No kidding. Sometimes I wonder if this sight is being overrun by 4th graders.




PLEASE tell me you misspelled "site" on purpose to make a point.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 1:17:17 PM EST
I was under martial law in the '77 johnstown pa flood. It lasted for a while. I was 16 or so.We got our shots, water, and if you were a ambulance chaser, you were denied entry to sensitive sites at gunpoint if needed. As far as detainees, the mp is to release you to civil authorities asap, after determining you need detained.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 3:15:03 PM EST
1

Originally Posted By quijanos:

Originally Posted By lippo:

Originally Posted By quijanos:
Anyone know the in/outs of Martial Law?

I know they declared it once in my hometown after a hurricane. It was only for a day or so. Nobody out after dark. Limited access to the city, which was underwater nonetheless = no access anyway. I can't remember as I was young but......
.......is arming yourself still a 'right' under martial law, i.e., you are bugging out etc. (can you still pack? w/ a CHL/CCW? still in affect? ) I can see some questions come up and I could develop an urge to be armed to the teeth in a situation similar........




The answer is no. If you look under state laws, you'll find that being armed during Marshall Martial Law is a no-no.




fixed it for ya
but,
I'm with you bro, I think I remember it that way, but also remember my dad and everyone else packing shotguns ( ala looters, etc) In a case like this you've gotta be able to defend yourself (at home in general) but on the move in light of the fact that you can't stay put (too dangerous/tidal surge etc)....
Any thoughts?
What if you are just leaving because otherwise you'll have to tread water? If you have to leave and in my case, I'll be emptying the contents of my safe as some of the fist items to take with me........



They only way they are going to know if you are packing a pistol or having the availibility of a rifle, is if they see it or you undergo some sort of search. Can you say, sears tool box? Do I need to say more?

I wonder if anyone has every been prosecuted for carrying during martial law, other than being caught during the commission of a crime?
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:21:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 5:27:02 PM EST by zombievt]
Vermont Constitution

Chapter 1
Article 17th

That no person in this state can in any case be subjected to law martial, or to any penalties or pains by virtue of that law except those employed in the army, and the militia in actual service.

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:28:33 PM EST

Originally Posted By Wobblin-Goblin:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
The Constitution was never 'suspended', even during the War Between The States.

Lincoln merely suspended parts of the Constitution, such as the writ of habeas corpus, IIRC.


What's a little Un-Constitutionalism now and then...between Republican Presidents?



The situation was a bit different then than it is now.

Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:32:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 5:34:13 PM EST by Paul]
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:38:26 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 5:47:51 PM EST

Originally Posted By lippo:
Originally Posted By quijanos:

The answer is no. If you look under state laws, you'll find that being armed during Marshall Law is a no-no.




... Fuck that, they'll have load me into a body-bag with the United States Constitution duct taped to my person and a bloody AR15 in my hands.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 6:31:02 PM EST
The government does not have the authority to declare "martial law".

To suggest that the government can suspend the Constitution is asenine, since they derive their power SOLELY from that document. If the document no longer exists, neither does the government. Period.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 6:34:34 PM EST

Originally Posted By lippo:



The answer is no. If you look under state laws, you'll find that being armed during Marshall Law is a no-no.





WTF? Do the words "Marbury vs. Madison" and "null and void" mean anything to you?

Somehow I must have missed the part of the Constitution where some dictator wannabee could simply eviscerate the Rights of Free men by executive fiat.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 6:52:45 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 6:59:10 PM EST by Dave_A]

Originally Posted By Az_Redneck:
The Constitution is suspended. Do the 'people' then fall under the UCMJ? If not, what would be the law of the land? It amazes me that the president can take away your Constitutional rights with the snap of a finger....

I remember reading something pre-Y2K where the tin foilers were saying that if something happens at 12:00am 1/1/01, slick Willie could declare Martial Law and stay prez until he decided he wanted to go... (Leaving GWB in the cold)...

How is it that a president can suspend the Constitution and stay in power? You would think the military would take control of the country wouldn't you? Or would the individual states (attempt to) take control of their residents via the Nat'l Guard, police, state troopers, etc?



If anyone attempts to suspend the Constitution and ignore or prevent elections, there will be a coup very quickly, and the would-be dictator will be gone...

Order would be restored, and the line of succession would be used to appoint the nearest non-conspirator as president untill elections could be held...

As for 'martial law', that is generally a STATE function in response to disasters or riots, NOT a Federal operation...

The only thing close to a provision for Federal Martial Law in the Constitution is the ability to suspend Habeus Corpus, but that is only in cases of rebellion or insurrection... I believe there is one other case, I don't know what it is...
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:03:07 PM EST

Originally Posted By RikWriter:
I applaud the original post author for spelling "martial" correctly.




+1



I read some of these posts and keep wondering, "Who the fuck is this Marshall guy, and why is his law such a big deal?"
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 10:35:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By Texas_Sig:
The government does not have the authority to declare "martial law".

To suggest that the government can suspend the Constitution is asenine, since they derive their power SOLELY from that document. If the document no longer exists, neither does the government. Period.




The federal government does NOT derive its power from the Constitution. It derives its power from the consent of the governed. The Constitution limits the powers of the fed.gov and delegates what it doesnt limit to the states & people.



Speaking of "consent", there are a hell of a lot of fed.gov actions I didn't consent to...
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 11:16:02 PM EST

Originally Posted By rjroberts:

Originally Posted By Az_Redneck:
The Constitution is suspended. Do the 'people' then fall under the UCMJ? If not, what would be the law of the land? It amazes me that the president can take away your Constitutional rights with the snap of a finger....

I remember reading something pre-Y2K where the tin foilers were saying that if something happens at 12:00am 1/1/01, slick Willie could declare Martial Law and stay prez until he decided he wanted to go... (Leaving GWB in the cold)...

How is it that a president can suspend the Constitution and stay in power? You would think the military would take control of the country wouldn't you? Or would the individual states (attempt to) take control of their residents via the Nat'l Guard, police, state troopers, etc?



Lincoln did it. How did he stay in power? And, the sleazeball propagandists otherwise known as most teachers make a god out of his baboonness.



Somehow this kind of immature ignoramity coming from Florida show that clearly the teachers failed miserably and/or somebody didn't even make it as far as 4th grade.

Although it takes reading of big words and small print , one might suggest that one might review the history of the imposition of martial law, suspension of civil rights, including the right to travel unimpeded, the suppression of a free press in Florida during the Civil War before absolutely embarassing everybody else from that state.
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 11:24:14 PM EST

Originally Posted By rjroberts:

Originally Posted By Az_Redneck:
The Constitution is suspended. Do the 'people' then fall under the UCMJ? If not, what would be the law of the land? It amazes me that the president can take away your Constitutional rights with the snap of a finger....

I remember reading something pre-Y2K where the tin foilers were saying that if something happens at 12:00am 1/1/01, slick Willie could declare Martial Law and stay prez until he decided he wanted to go... (Leaving GWB in the cold)...

How is it that a president can suspend the Constitution and stay in power? You would think the military would take control of the country wouldn't you? Or would the individual states (attempt to) take control of their residents via the Nat'l Guard, police, state troopers, etc?



Lincoln did it. How did he stay in power? And, the sleazeball propagandists otherwise known as most teachers make a god out of his baboonness.



Linclon stayed in power because he did it AFTER the revolt had allready started...

The guys who had a problem with it were allready doing something about it, and were the REASON that Lincoln did it in the first place...

One of the few legit situations for Fed martial law, an insurrection...
Link Posted: 9/20/2004 11:34:54 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/20/2004 11:36:25 PM EST by PaDanby]
These are the CA Government Code Sections dealing with Martial Law. Notice that the vast majority of the sections deal with Emergency Preparations. (Not all that surprising seeing that although we can probably almost expect not to see hurricanes (although we have been hit by the edges a few times, we can definitely expect that we are gonna get well and truly whacked by an earthquake or two some day). You can probably find the similar sections where it is enumerated for your state. You'll note that NOWHERE does it state that carrying of weapons is illegal. Might that be proclaimed? Yes, Can it be proclaimed statewide? Yes, Can it be reasonable enforced? Yes, but one can expect that common sense will prevail again as in the last LA riots and the use of arms to protect ones business, families and homes will probably be overlooked except in extreme cases.

CALIFORNIA CODES
GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 8565-8574

8565. The Governor shall have the powers granted by this article,
which powers shall be in addition to any other powers granted to him
by this chapter.


8566. The Governor is empowered to expend any appropriation for
support of the California Emergency Services Act to carry out the
provisions of this chapter.


8567. (a) The Governor may make, amend, and rescind orders and
regulations necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.
The orders and regulations shall have the force and effect of law.
Due consideration shall be given to the plans of the federal
government in preparing the orders and regulations. The Governor
shall cause widespread publicity and notice to be given to all such
orders and regulations, or amendments or rescissions thereof.
(b) Orders and regulations, or amendments or rescissions thereof,
issued during a state of war emergency or state of emergency shall be
in writing and shall take effect immediately upon their issuance.
Whenever the state of war emergency or state of emergency has been
terminated, the orders and regulations shall be of no further force
or effect.
(c) All orders and regulations relating to the use of funds
pursuant to Article 16 (commencing with Section 8645) shall be
prepared in advance of any commitment or expenditure of the funds.
Other orders and regulations needed to carry out the provisions of
this chapter shall, whenever practicable, be prepared in advance of a
state of war emergency or state of emergency.
(d) All orders and regulations made in advance of a state of war
emergency or state of emergency shall be in writing, shall be exempt
from Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of
Division 3 of Title 2, but shall be subject to the approval of the
Emergency Council. As soon thereafter as possible they shall be
filed in the office of the Secretary of State and with the county
clerk of each county.



8568. The State Emergency Plan shall be in effect in each political
subdivision of the state, and the governing body of each political
subdivision shall take such action as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions thereof.


8569. The Governor shall coordinate the State Emergency Plan and
those programs necessary for the mitigation of the effects of an
emergency in this state; and he shall coordinate the preparation of
plans and programs for the mitigation of the effects of an emergency
by the political subdivisions of this state, such plans and programs
to be integrated into and coordinated with the State Emergency Plan
and the plans and programs of the federal government and of other
states to the fullest possible extent.



8570. The Governor may, in accordance with the State Emergency Plan
and programs for the mitigation of the effects of an emergency in
this state:
(a) Ascertain the requirements of the state or its political
subdivisions for food, clothing, and other necessities of life in the
event of an emergency.
(b) Plan for, procure, and pre-position supplies, medicines,
materials, and equipment.
(c) Use and employ any of the property, services, and resources of
the state as necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
(d) Provide for the approval of local emergency plans.
(e) Provide for mobile support units.
(f) Provide for use of public airports.
(g) Institute training programs and public information programs.
(h) Make surveys of the industries, resources, and facilities,
both public and private, within the state, as are necessary to carry
out the purposes of this chapter.
(i) Plan for the use of any private facilities, services, and
property and, when necessary, and when in fact used, provide for
payment for that use under the terms and conditions as may be agreed
upon.
(j) Take all other preparatory steps, including the partial or
full mobilization of emergency organizations in advance of an actual
emergency; and order those test exercises needed to insure the
furnishing of adequately trained and equipped personnel in time of
need.


8570.5. The Office of Emergency Services shall develop a guidance
document to the state emergency plan to specify the response of the
state and its political subdivisions to agriculture-related
disasters. This document shall be completed by January 2002 and
shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following:
(a) The roles and responsibilities of the county agricultural
commissioners.
(b) The roles and responsibilities of the Department of
Agriculture and other relevant state agencies that are involved in
the response to agriculture-related disasters.
(c) Coordination of initial and ongoing crop damage assessments.
(d) Disaster assistance between the time of the request for a
federal disaster declaration and issuance of a federal declaration.
(e) State assistance available if a requested federal declaration
is not issued.
(f) State assistance under a United States Department of
Agriculture designation rather than a federal declaration.
(g) State assistance for long-term unemployment in areas with high
unemployment rates prior to an emergency.
(h) Provision for the removal and elimination of extraordinary
numbers of dead livestock for purposes of protecting public health
and safety.
(i) Strategies to assist in the development of an integrated and
coordinated response by community-based organizations to the victims
of agriculture-related disasters.
(j) Procedures for the decontamination of individuals who have
been or may have been exposed to hazardous materials, which may vary
depending on the hazards posed by a particular hazardous material.
The report shall specify that individuals shall be assisted in a
humanitarian manner.
(k) Integration of various local and state emergency response
plans, including, but not limited to, plans that relate to hazardous
materials, oil spills, public health emergencies, and general
disasters.



8571. During a state of war emergency or a state of emergency the
Governor may suspend any regulatory statute, or statute prescribing
the procedure for conduct of state business, or the orders, rules, or
regulations of any state agency, including subdivision (d) of
Section 1253 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, where the Governor
determines and declares that strict compliance with any statute,
order, rule, or regulation would in any way prevent, hinder, or delay
the mitigation of the effects of the emergency.



8572. In the exercise of the emergency powers hereby vested in him
during a state of war emergency or state of emergency, the Governor
is authorized to commandeer or utilize any private property or
personnel deemed by him necessary in carrying out the
responsibilities hereby vested in him as Chief Executive of the state
and the state shall pay the reasonable value thereof.

Notwithstanding the provisions of this section, the Governor is
not authorized to commandeer any newspaper, newspaper wire service,
or radio or television station, but may, during a state of war
emergency or state of emergency, and if no other means of
communication are available, utilize any news wire services, and the
state shall pay the reasonable value of such use. In so utilizing any
such facilities, the Governor shall interfere as little as possible
with their use for the transmission of news.



8573. The Governor may cooperate with the President and the heads
of the armed forces and other agencies of the United States, and with
officers and agencies of other states, on matters pertaining to
emergencies; and he may take any steps he deems necessary to put into
effect any rules, regulations, or suggestions made by such persons
or agencies.



8574. None of the provisions of this chapter shall limit, modify,
or abridge the powers vested in the Governor under the Constitution
or statutes of the state by proclamation, to declare any county, city
and county, or city, or any portion thereof to be in a state of
insurrection or to proclaim the existence of martial law and to
exercise all the powers vested in him thereunder independent of, or
in conjunction with, any of the provisions of this chapter.




Link Posted: 9/21/2004 12:30:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
The Constitution was never 'suspended', even during the War Between The States.







Link Posted: 9/21/2004 12:53:06 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/21/2004 1:16:18 AM EST by PaDanby]
Not by the Northern States, the Southern States shitcanned it as soon as they could . The replacement was quite flawed in the areas of civil rights for citizens AND their property.

From Civil War Home, a site that prides itself on telling the "other" side of the story.
www.civilwarhome.com/csa.htm

With respect to Constitutional issues
www.civilwarhome.com/csaconstitutionbackground.htm

During the war itself the Davis government was able to overcome some, hut not all, of the constitutional obstacles to a strong government. President Davis amassed considerable power, but at great cost to his political capital. During the war the Davis administration often suppressed civil liberties to a greater extent than its counterpart in Washington. Only five days after Davis took office the Confederate Congress adopted legislation allowing the suspension of habeas corpus. Davis sporadically imposed martial law on Richmond and other major cities. In some areas of the Confederacy, like eastern Tennessee, martial law led to the summary executions of a few civilians and the mass incarceration of others. By the end of the war, Vice President Alexander Stephens and other leading polificians no longer supported the administration, in part because of Davis's "betrayal" of Southern Constitutional principles. 'Our liberties, once lost," he declared, "may be lost forever."

Southern distrust for the national judiciary was apparent in the drafting of Article III of the Confederate document. A key provision of the U.S. Constitution is the clause creating diversity jurisdiction by giving the federal courts the power to hear cases "between Citizens of different States." The Confederate Constitution lacked such a provision, which in practice meant that civil suits between citizens of different states would have to be litigated in state courts. This undermined the nationalization of law and jurisprudence, and had the Confederacy survived, it probably would have led to unnecessary complications in litigation and complaints about the failure of litigants to get a fair trial in a neutral forum. Moreover, in a nation that was predicated on state rights and local interests, the abolition of diversity jurisdiction could have led to a judicial and business climate that would have hampered economic development. The Confederate Constitution also failed to include the phrase "law and equity" in granting jurisdiction to the national courts. This is generally seen as a concession to the civil law system in Louisiana and its vestiges in Texas. A final bow to state rights, and one that could have led to enormous instability, was a provision allowing a constitutional convention to be called on the demand of just three states.

Slavery. Far from a "peculiar institution," slavery was, as Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens declared, 'the cornerstone" of the Confederacy. As such, it was protected even more in the Confederate Constitution than it had been in the proslavery U.S. Constitution of 1787.
The most obvious difference between the two documents lay in their use of the term slavery. In deference in 1787 to some of the Northern delegates who thought their constituents might oppose the Constitution if the word appeared, the framers of the U.S. Constitution substituted such phrases as other persons, such persons, and persons owing service for the word slaves. No such problems arose in the framing of the Confederate document. The blatantly proslavery Confederate Constitution contains the words slave or slavery ten times in seven separate clauses.
As their predecessors had in the Philadelphia Convention of 1787, the South Carolina delegates in Montgomery wanted to count slaves fully for representation. South Carolina had a larger percentage of slaves than any other state and would have gained by their full representation. The delegates in Montgomery, however, must have understood that a full counting of slaves would have discouraged the other Southern states, with smaller percentages of slaves, from joining the Confederacy. Thus, the convention chose to continue the Federal compromise by maintaining the three-fifths clause for determining congressional apportionment.
The frequent refusal of Northern states to cooperate in the rendition of fugitive slaves had been a major irritant in the antebellum period. The Montgomery delegates did not, however, substantially alter the fugitive slave clause in their Constitution. There were probably two reasons for this. First, they were writing a constitution for a slaveholders republic, and it was unlikely that any Confederate state would ever adopt legislation similar to the Northern personal liberty laws. Second, a substantial change in the wording of the clause would have undermined the Southern argument that the meaning of the clause in the U.S. Constitution was clear and that secession was justified by the North's refusal to fulfill its constitutional obligations.
The Confederate Constitution also mirrored, hut surpassed, the federal Constitution on the issue of the slave trade by absolutely forbidding the operation of the African slave trade. This was done over protestations of South Carolinians, who wanted the matter left to Congress. Prohibiting the trade was not an indication of antislavery sentiment but the result of the distaste for the African trade by some slave owners, fear of Africans themselves, and the feat that Europe would not recognize the Confederacy if it did not unequivocally prohibit the trade. Permitting the trade also might have discouraged Virginia and Maryland from entering the Confederacy because of the excess of slaves in those states. Those states might not have wanted foreign competition with their interstate slave trade.
On all other issues the Constitution created a thoroughly proslavery republic. The Constitution authorized Congress to limit the importation of slaves from other nations and states but did not prohibit it altogether as current federal law did. The Constitution absolutely prohibited any law "imparing the right of property in negro slaves." Reflecting Southern states rejection of Northern states decisions that had freed the slaves of visitors, Article IV guaranteed that the citizens of each Confederate state "shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired." The Constitutions fugitive slave clause reiterated this right. Finally, the Constitution affirmed the proslavery holding of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney in the U.S. Supreme Court Dred Scott decision, by declaring that slavery could never be prohibited from any Confederate territory. At the same time, however, the Confederate authors jettisoned Taneys implausible argument that the national government could not regulate the territories. Thus, their territory clause accomplished two proslavery goals. It guaranteed both slavery in the territories and the ability of Congress to counter any antislavery movement that might arise in the Confederate hinterlands.



And this from a site very Pro-Confederacy
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 1:43:58 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/21/2004 1:48:21 AM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
There are very good reasons to have Marshall Law.


Sometimes the masses NEED to be controlled.


Sgatr15



YOU need to be controlled (with a club !).



Link Posted: 9/21/2004 6:07:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By MoparMike:
The federal government does NOT derive its power from the Constitution. It derives its power from the consent of the governed. The Constitution limits the powers of the fed.gov and delegates what it doesnt limit to the states & people.



You have it exactly backward. The federal government derives all its powers from the Constitution. But for the Constitution, the federal government would not exist. It is entirely a creature of the Constitution. The main body of the Constitution does not limit the powers of the federal government, but rather creates them. Many of the amendments limit or expand the powers laid out in the body of the Constitution.

The Constitution does not delegate power to the states or the people. It reserves pre-existing powers to them. See the 9th and 10th Amendments, which were an attempt to make explicit the implicit assumption of the original Constitution that the federal government is one possessed only of enumerated powers.

"The consent of the governed" is not a concept from the Constitution, but from the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. . . .


Along with the representative system it created, the Constitution is the instrument by which the consent of the governed is expressed.
Top Top