Trump’s attack on Iran has chased the events in Los Angeles off the front pages, but I don’t think we should take our eyes off the ball. Many people are saying (ha!) that his Orangeness is looking for a reason to declare martial law.
So, what does that actually mean?
1. What exactly is “martial law?” Does this mean troops in the streets?
2. What sorts of events can trigger martial law? What has to happen for Trump (or any POTUS) to be able to declare martial law?
3. How would martial law affect the ordinary lives of Americans? Is this something that would just affect people in big cities? What about those of us in small towns between the cities?
4. What does the civil police do during a declaration of martial law? Do they still enforce the ordinary breaches of the peace – robbery, traffic infractions, homicides, etc.?
5. Can martial law be declared in a limited area, such as a city or a section of a city?
6. Has martial law been declared in the United States in the past?
What other questions do people have about martial law?
It means the civil government is replaced by military authority.
Of course, getting into details results in a much more expansive answer.
It depends on why it is declare, for how large an area it is declared, how long it is in effect, and the exact details of how the military authority imposing it goes about things. It could range from a curfew and polite young people in camo and carrying weapons on the corner keeping an eye on things/dealing with problems peacefully to a situation where you really need to stay indoors, away from the windows, and shooting may be happening outside.
Potentially they regular police could continue to do regular police work. Again, it depends on what the military authority in charge decides to do, and who they want to work with.
Regarding elections: US law when it comes to martial law is silent in regards to elections. The PotUS does not have the authority to delay or cancel a Federal election, that power (according to my information) rests with Congress. Which… well, who knows these days. Whether or not local elections occur is up to the military authority in charge during martial law.
Although I will point out that US elections seldom are delayed, and so far as I know never cancelled, even in war time, even when that war involves open rebellion.
You are probably correct about cancellation of local or state elections. I know POTUS can’t cancel Federal ones. But I’m pretty sure DJT would want to instruct the military authority who should be allowed on the ballot for local or state races.
When 9/11 occurred, the New York City elections were delayed IIRC. How long were they delayed for?
Arizona declared martial law over the Federal construction of a dam on the Colorado River.
And although repudiated by SCOTUS, Korematsu has never been officially overturned so could martial law also involve internment of those in the US legally including citizens?
Thank y’all for the conversation. If I’m understanding correctly, martial law can be pretty much a free-for-all depending on what the military authority wants to do. I’m a bit hung up, though, on the term “military authority.” If the POTUS, whoever he may be, declares martial law on, let’s suppose, Austin, then isn’t the president the military authority executing the martial law? So, democracy is still sort of represented.
Not in any practical sense. The United Stares is a representative democracy, which is to say that constituencies receive proxy representation through their Congresspeople. The role of President was never intended to be as powerful as it has become with the deference and delegation of Congressional prerogative the executive (and the operation of clandestine services influencing policy both domestic and abroad) but at least there is still the ‘power of the purse’ under Congress and the ostensible limitations on using the military to enforce domestic law and policy. Under ‘martial law’, assuming complete ‘unitary executive’ control, such representation doesn’t exist.
By that reasoning if a governor of a state declares martial law “democracy is still sort of represented”. But under martial law there is no democracy - the authority in charge can issue rules without consulting the populace. Suspension of habeus corpus is common. It can become quite dictatorial.
I get that. But, the POTUS or governor has been elected at some point.
I’m really having a hard time wrapping my head around this whole concept. Where is it written that the POTUS can just declare martial law and send in the troops? If he/she has always had that power, then haven’t we always been living our lives at the pleasure of whoever the president is at any given time? Wouldn’t the imposition of martial law require a martial force willing to carry it out? Suppose Trump decides to put Austin under martial law right now and orders troops from Fort Cavazos (or “Fort Hood”) to come down and secure the city. Surely there is some command and control structure to say “Whoa, there. We can’t just occupy a city in Texas just because Trump is in a mood!”
Because POTUS is the Commander in Chief there is no command and control structure set up to hinder his/her orders. There have been multiple SCOTUS rulings on the topic martial law. Here is an informative link with some background.
Also, what running_coach said just above is relevant - prior to DJT any President who would declare martial law in the way and for the reasons he is likely to would have been impeached, convicted and removed from office at head spinning speed. That is not likely anymore with the current GOP holding power.