3 ms·

> Who are these people you keep referring to? Just the various takes i've read in newspapers about why people are fed up and desire change. > Martial law in A

> Who are these people you keep referring to? Just the various takes i've read in newspapers about why people are fed up and desire change. > Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution. > Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; The SC has ruled that 'Congress' means the government writ large, including state governments. https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-26/pastor-and-protester-clashed-over-coronavirus https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-04-26/pastor... https://www.npr.org/2021/02/06/964822479/supreme-court-rules-against-california-ban-on-in-person-worship-amid-the-pandemi https://www.npr.org/2021/02/06/964822479/supreme-court-rules... Oops... guess that one was suspended! If you have to appeal to SCOTUS to un-suspend it, it's safe to say that it was suspended.

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> various takes i've read in newspapers about why people are fed up and desire change They made less money. I'm looking forward to the next two years: I and everyone in my friend circle are going to make a lot of money. Even if we do nothing. > if you have to appeal to SCOTUS to un-suspend it, it's safe to say that it was suspended You're using a judiciary striking down an unconstitutional law as an example of martial law? Maybe start with the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law. Here's a hint: if you can appeal to any court, you're not under martial law.
- anon291 2y ago
  So we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'. Who said no rights were suspended? You're arguing with yourself [1]. The wrong statement made at the head was that we had martial law in the West during Covid. We did not. Not even close. If civilian courts can overrule anything, you're not under martial law. (Also, every state is constantly passing laws that are struck down, if this is your standard for martial law then everyone is always under martial law and the term is meaningless.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
    - anon291 2y ago
      You said: > Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution. I pointed out that constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared. Then, after making the simple claim above you continually change the goal posts. First, martial law is suspension of the constitution. Then, it's suspension of the constitution and the inability to appeal to courts. Pick one. If it's simply suspending the constitution... then we saw that. But you've changed the goal posts, not me.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution. I pointed out that constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared. Category error. Breakfast means eating food. That doesn't make every meal breakfast. > constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared. Suspending the Constitution and having Constitutional rights suspended (or more accurately, violated) are very, very different. America under martial law would not have to respect courts, states, or any legislature. You'd have a commander in chief and his generals and everything else exists at their pleasure. Note that one could suspend the Constitution without martial law. A Constitutional Convention could suspend the Constitution, for instance. > you've changed the goal posts, not me. Read the Wikipedia article. Or just look up the word "martial."

JumpCrisscross 2y ago

> various takes i've read in newspapers about why people are fed up and desire change They made less money. I'm looking forward to the next two years: I and everyone in my friend circle are going to make a lot of money. Even if we do nothing. > if you have to appeal to SCOTUS to un-suspend it, it's safe to say that it was suspended You're using a judiciary striking down an unconstitutional law as an example of martial law? Maybe start with the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law. Here's a hint: if you can appeal to any court, you're not under martial law.

anon291 2y ago
So we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'. Who said no rights were suspended? You're arguing with yourself [1]. The wrong statement made at the head was that we had martial law in the West during Covid. We did not. Not even close. If civilian courts can overrule anything, you're not under martial law. (Also, every state is constantly passing laws that are struck down, if this is your standard for martial law then everyone is always under martial law and the term is meaningless.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
  - anon291 2y ago
    You said: > Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution. I pointed out that constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared. Then, after making the simple claim above you continually change the goal posts. First, martial law is suspension of the constitution. Then, it's suspension of the constitution and the inability to appeal to courts. Pick one. If it's simply suspending the constitution... then we saw that. But you've changed the goal posts, not me.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution. I pointed out that constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared. Category error. Breakfast means eating food. That doesn't make every meal breakfast. > constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared. Suspending the Constitution and having Constitutional rights suspended (or more accurately, violated) are very, very different. America under martial law would not have to respect courts, states, or any legislature. You'd have a commander in chief and his generals and everything else exists at their pleasure. Note that one could suspend the Constitution without martial law. A Constitutional Convention could suspend the Constitution, for instance. > you've changed the goal posts, not me. Read the Wikipedia article. Or just look up the word "martial."