2 ms·
You said: > Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution. I pointed out that constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, marti
by 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."