“Marshall.” Ugh our fuckin writers. As subtle as a horse’s kick to your head. https://t.co/x1t6WGfj7o
— LeavePlutoAloneHat (@Popehat) April 26, 2022
martial law, temporary rule by military authorities of a designated area in time of emergency when the civil authorities are deemed unable to function. The legal effects of a declaration of martial law differ in various jurisdictions, but they generally involve a suspension of normal civil rights and the extension to the civilian population of summary military justice or of military law. Although temporary in theory, a state of martial law may in fact continue indefinitely.In the English legal system, the term is of dubious significance; in the words of the English jurist Sir Frederick Pollock, “so-called ‘martial law,’ as distinct from military law, is an unlucky name for the justification by the common law of acts done by necessity for the defence of the Commonwealth when there is war within the realm.”Such “acts done by necessity” are limited only by international law and the conventions of civilized warfare. Further, the regular civil courts do not review the decisions of tribunals set up by the military authorities, and very little authority exists on the question of remedies against abuse of powers by the military. In Great Britain and many other jurisdictions, such questions are of little significance in view of the modern practice of taking emergency or special powers by statute.
Martial law involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked in time of war, rebellion, or natural disaster.AbstractWhen martial law is in effect, the military commander of an area or country has unlimited authority to make and enforce laws. Martial law is justified when civilian authority has ceased to function, is completely absent, or has become ineffective. Further, martial law suspends all existing laws, as well as civil authority and the ordinary administration of justice. In the United States, martial law may be declared by proclamation of the President or a State governor, but such a formal proclamation is not necessary. Although the U.S. Constitution makes no specific provision for the imposition of martial law, nearly every State has a constitutional provision authorizing the government to impose martial law. The power of martial law, once held to be nearly absolute, has limitations; for example, civilians may not be tried by military tribunals as long as civilian courts are functional. Nonetheless, within the bounds of court decisions, a military commander's authority under martial law is virtually unlimited. Martial law has been declared nine times since World War II and, in five instances, was designed to counter resistance to Federal desegregation decrees in the South. Although a climate of mutual aid has always existed between the military and civilian law enforcement and should continue to exist, Department of Defense personnel are limited in what they can do to enforce civil law. Military personnel cannot be used in surveillance or undercover operations, and they may not be used as informants, investigators, or interrogators unless the investigation is a joint military-civilian operation in which the military has an interest in the case's outcome.
As I write this, for instance, a top trending topic is "Marshall Law." That refers to Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's efforts, after the 2020 election, to pressure Donald Trump into staging a military coup. Of course that's an important story — in theory. But in practice, the substance of the story is being ignored in favor of a morbid fascination with Greene's apparent ignorance. (Just in case you're not on Twitter and have been living in a hermitage, she misspelled "martial law" as "Marshall.")
This isn't about the danger that folks like Greene and Trump pose to democracy. It's about extremely online liberals who can't resist a chance to show off their superior command of grammar and spelling, compared to the right-wingers they hate, and it's about the fact that mockery matters more to the Twitter algorithm than the potential end of democracy does. Something like Kushner's Saudi scandal — which is fascinating to read about, but doesn't drive "engagement" or angry debate on social media — doesn't even stand a chance in such an environment.
The ignorance of MTG is not because she is seemingly illiterate. Yes, English spelling is an absurd briar patch. As Bernard Shaw pointed out, a likely spelling of "fish" could well be "ghoti" (the "gh" from "tough," but not "through," mind; the "ti" from "lotion," or take your pick of replacement consonants at the beginning of that word. Can't recall now where the "o" was supposed to come from, but even my examples are my own, not necessarily Shaw's originals). He wasn't wrong (and why does that word begin with a "w"?). No, it's not about the spelling, or at least it shouldn't be. It is about the ignorance.
MTG is a member of Congress. Odds are she had no idea what "martial law" means, except it puts one person in power and that person is on her side, so that's fine with her. She was, in other words, all in favor of forgetting the oath she'd recently sworn (did it mean anything to her anyway?) and setting fire to the Constitution because the wrong person had won the Presidential election. Was she aware of the implications of what she sought? Consider the matter a bit more carefully:
Martial law is justified when civilian authority has ceased to function, is completely absent, or has become ineffective. Further, martial law suspends all existing laws, as well as civil authority and the ordinary administration of justice.
Did events on January 6th justify "a suspension of all existing laws, civil authority, and the ordinary administration of justice"? I don't just mean the riot in the Capitol building, I mean the joint session of Congress. That's actually what Ms. Greene was referring to. She wanted Trump to dissolve Congress, suspend the Electoral Count Act, and declare himself re-elected by power of suspending all the laws, and the Constitution.
Yeah, that is "an important story."
Martial law has been declared nine times since World War II and, in five instances, was designed to counter resistance to Federal desegregation decrees in the South.
I'm assuming "since World War II" refers to anytime after V-J Day. I'm curious what the other 4 were for, but it's interesting it was imposed 5 times to counter resistance to desegregation. Seems to me that's an important part of the story, too.
I won't jump on the bandwagon of those jeering at the Congresswoman because she can't spell. I will say it displays her ignorance and her unfitness for office (sadly if that was all it took to get the House to eject you, the House would be no more than 1/3 full at any one time). I will point out it's disturbing that her failure to even know what the correct word is indicates she has no idea what she was calling for, or even more, why. Or she did, and she has no regard for the Constitution or the laws of the land. The only thing she understands is that the right people should be in power, and the wrong people should have no say, no voice, be given no consideration.
Pretty important story after all. Maybe a horse's kick to the head is too subtle for some people, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment