Need help...question re Martial Law...

[MsKandice01]

My husband and I are having a discussion right now about the imposition of martial law and suspension of elections. My husband does not believe that Bush would have the ability to suspend elections, even if he declares martial law on Election Day. I told him that if he declares martial law, he can pretty much do anything he wants, but he's not convinced.

Is there any information out there that discusses this particular scenario in detail? Can someone help me out here?

[walldude]

1. Here's an article from Counterpunch on that very subject:

http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen0514.html

Scary times...

[Raven]

2. Under his recent executive order I think he can suspend

anything he wants to. If a state of emergency is declared he can suspend the election under the guise of protecting people by prohibiting large gatherings...at the polls, for instance, and that is just how he'll rationalize it. He'll just "postpone" the election...for a week and then another week...and so on. He'll be protecting the "Murican people" don't ya know!

[krispos42]

4. Unless that executive order is unconstitutional

But that requires time.

Scary, isn't it?

[krispos42]

3. Would the military go along with arbitrary martial law?

That is the question.

I don't think they will, so BushCo will have to create a crisis of some kind in order to justify it.

I don't know if the states will go along with it either. What if Bush mobilized the National Guard and the governors of the states tell them to ignore the orders? What if the governors mobilize there National Guardsmen under the authority of the individual states and move to protect their states against soldiers and Marines?

I wonder if any of the governors have thought of that possibility and are prepared to do it.

And I wonder if, if Bush does declare sweeping martial law, the Congress is ready to hold the world's fastest impeachment hearings. I mean, impeachment at 8am, trial at 9am, conviction at noon, kind of fast.

[walldude]

5. Yeah, the crazy bastard may just force a civil war

on the other hand maybe that's why they've been draining the coffers of the National Guard, to make sure the States have no way to defend themselves.. It all sounds so crazy but the pieces fit together all too well, especially with the level of secrecy we are at. With all the things that have leaked out and all the stuff we know, I can only imagine what they are doing in secret and that's what scares me.

[salin]

10. Blackwater for troops/manpower??

And does the EO and declaration of marial law include disbanding congress? If congress is disbanded - and meets to vote articles of impeachment and the senate votes to convict - would it count?

I don't see it happening - armored trucks driving around millions of culdesacs? How in the world is it enforced?

[krispos42]

13. Bush can't legally or constitutionally disband Congress

The military would be forced by their oaths to acknowledge Pelosi as President and Commander-in-Chief, regardless of what the Chimp pontificated about.

I personally think that the Blackwater types would be getting shot at quite a bit. This is America, land of the gun. And we have millions of ex-military people running around to show us how to do it.

[Posteritatis]

11. Just enough would to make things very, uh, interesting, is my guess. (nt)

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. I believe you are correct

[Emit]

7. There was talk about the suspension of elections in '04

Newsweek broke this story:

Exclusive: Election Day Worries
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

July 19 issue - American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek


~snip~

As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously—along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

[krispos42]

9. Bush was 'proud' to have an election in a 'time of war', back in '06

<snip>

One freedom that defines our way of life is the freedom to choose our leaders at the ballot box. We saw that freedom earlier this week, when millions of Americans went to the polls to cast their votes for a new Congress. Whatever your opinion of the outcome, all Americans can take pride in the example our democracy sets for the world by holding elections even in a time of war. Our democratic institutions are a source of strength, and our trust in these institutions has made America the most powerful, prosperous, and stable nation in the world.

<more>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061111.html

<boldface mine>

Hmmm.... he also said this:

<snip>

As a result of this week's elections, the Democrats now hold a majority in both Houses of Congress. After the elections, I called the Democratic leaders in the House and the Senate to congratulate them on the victory they achieved for their party.

<more>

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/11/20061111.html

<boldface mine>

Not for America, just for their party, eh? It started way back then, didn't it?

[The Magistrate]

8. People Would Have To Obey, Ma'am

This is not, repeat not, going to happen.

Not only will there be elections in '08, the Democratic Party will win them by thumping margins.

[dkofos]

12. It's the *ush crime family. They will do as they please, without regard

to the laws of the land.