8 ms·

Yonhap (Korea state news) : The National Assembly voted Wednesday to demand President Yoon Suk Yeol lift emergency martial law. Under the Constitution, martia

Yonhap (Korea state news) : The National Assembly voted Wednesday to demand President Yoon Suk Yeol lift emergency martial law. Under the Constitution, martial law must be lifted when a parliamentary majority demands it. Of the 300 members of parliament, 190 were present and all 190 voted in favor of a motion demanding the lifting of martial law. With the motion's passage, the martial law declaration is void, according to the parliamentary speaker's office. [1] [1] https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241204001651315 https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20241204001651315

cassepipe 2y ago
Last time I checked, access to the national assembly palace was being blocked : https://bsky.app/profile/sung-il-kim.com/post/3lcfskluuwc26 https://bsky.app/profile/sung-il-kim.com/post/3lcfskluuwc26 Any idea how and why it was unblocked ? Anyone with more context ? EDIT: This is the first I cannot think of any reason for getting a downvote... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- kijin 2y ago
  The police kept the protesters out, but eventually let in most members of the national assembly and their staff after checking their ID. Martial law is about using the military to control civilian activities. The police are civilian. Their order is to maintain peace, not to interfere with people who have legitimate business at the facility. If Yoon really wanted to preempt the national assembly, he should have sent in the military earlier.
  - notahacker 2y ago
    There are reports and photos of actual troops in the building, and reports and photos of people who definitely don't look like civilian police leaving the building. I think the bigger problem with attempting to preempt the national assembly is that the troops didn't particularly want to interfere with people that had legitimate business at the assembly either.
    - kijin 2y ago
      Yeah, a few helicopters carrying troops touched down in the national assembly, but it seems they arrived too late and only waved their guns around half-heartedly. I think by the time they arrived, it was already clear which way the wind was blowing. They left soon after the vote took place.
  - hyeonwho4 2y ago
    There were videos of Assemblymen jumping the fence around the building, so it looks like the police were not letting assembly members enter.
    - kijin 2y ago
      The blockade was rather inconsistent. Some entered through the gate, some jumped the fence. Some didn't make it through at all. But If the police really wanted to block the lawmakers from gathering, they would have guarded the fence as well. The police was clearly preoccupied with controlling the protesters instead.
  - Polizeiposaune 2y ago
    It appears that the South Korean constitution has a few provisions relating to legislative immunity: --- Article 44 1. During the sessions of the National Assembly, no member of the National Assembly shall be arrested or detained without the consent of the National Assembly except in case of flagrante delicto. 2. In case of apprehension or detention of a member of the National Assembly prior to the opening of a session, such member shall be released during the session upon the request of the National Assembly, except in case of flagrante delicto. Article 45 No member of the National Assembly shall be held responsible outside the National Assembly for opinions officially expressed or votes cast in the Assembly. --- (from https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Republic_of_Korea_1987.pdf https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Republic_of_K... linked elsewhere in this thread; "flagrante delicto" is a legal term of art for "being caught in the act". These provisions are similar to ones found in Article I section 6 of the US constitution.). Edit to give additional credit where it's due: According to the US Library of Congress, the US Speech or Debate clause is derived from a similar provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and was adopted as part of the US constitution without much discussion. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013301/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
s1artibartfast 2y ago
Despite the National Assembly's resolution to end martial law, the military stated that it would remain in effect until ended by the president >Martial law will remain until the president lifts martial law"...Armored vehicles also seen in the city center https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0101&key=202412040135157140&pos= https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0101&key=20241204013...
- SauciestGNU 2y ago
  Seems like everybody's staking out all-in positions here. Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups.
  - robotnikman 2y ago
    As the saying goes- If you aim for the king, you better not miss
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups. They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.
    - s1artibartfast 2y ago
      The question is then what the Constitution says about a president who fails to execute his constitutional obligations, such as lifting martial law once it is nullified. Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations or a faster solution. I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.
pc86 2y ago
The President has said he will stand down martial law through the cabinet meeting. My understanding is that the parliamentary vote itself is not binding, but requires essentially a rubber stamp by the cabinet. They can decline to do so and the President wouldn't be legally required to stand down. Regardless, 190-0 is an overwhelming statement and if I was represented by one of the 110 absent members I would have a lot of very serious questions for them.
- card_zero 2y ago
  This is now done, the cabinet met and lifted the martial law (despite the time being about 5 in the morning).
- summerlight 2y ago
  No, the constitution mandates the president to stand down. The cabinet approval is just a procedural one to make the boundary clear between authorities. The supreme court's interpretation is that if they don't approve it within a reasonable time, the resolution will automatically take effect regardless of the cabinet.
- ensignavenger 2y ago
  It is my understanding that some members of parliament were having trouble making it in. It is also likely that they took the vote as soon as enough members were present to be legal, instead of waiting any longer for all the members of parliament to arrive. Of course, some may have taken their time in order to avoid voting on it.

cassepipe 2y ago

Last time I checked, access to the national assembly palace was being blocked : https://bsky.app/profile/sung-il-kim.com/post/3lcfskluuwc26 https://bsky.app/profile/sung-il-kim.com/post/3lcfskluuwc26 Any idea how and why it was unblocked ? Anyone with more context ? EDIT: This is the first I cannot think of any reason for getting a downvote... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

kijin 2y ago
The police kept the protesters out, but eventually let in most members of the national assembly and their staff after checking their ID. Martial law is about using the military to control civilian activities. The police are civilian. Their order is to maintain peace, not to interfere with people who have legitimate business at the facility. If Yoon really wanted to preempt the national assembly, he should have sent in the military earlier.
- notahacker 2y ago
  There are reports and photos of actual troops in the building, and reports and photos of people who definitely don't look like civilian police leaving the building. I think the bigger problem with attempting to preempt the national assembly is that the troops didn't particularly want to interfere with people that had legitimate business at the assembly either.
  - kijin 2y ago
    Yeah, a few helicopters carrying troops touched down in the national assembly, but it seems they arrived too late and only waved their guns around half-heartedly. I think by the time they arrived, it was already clear which way the wind was blowing. They left soon after the vote took place.
- hyeonwho4 2y ago
  There were videos of Assemblymen jumping the fence around the building, so it looks like the police were not letting assembly members enter.
  - kijin 2y ago
    The blockade was rather inconsistent. Some entered through the gate, some jumped the fence. Some didn't make it through at all. But If the police really wanted to block the lawmakers from gathering, they would have guarded the fence as well. The police was clearly preoccupied with controlling the protesters instead.
- Polizeiposaune 2y ago
  It appears that the South Korean constitution has a few provisions relating to legislative immunity: --- Article 44 1. During the sessions of the National Assembly, no member of the National Assembly shall be arrested or detained without the consent of the National Assembly except in case of flagrante delicto. 2. In case of apprehension or detention of a member of the National Assembly prior to the opening of a session, such member shall be released during the session upon the request of the National Assembly, except in case of flagrante delicto. Article 45 No member of the National Assembly shall be held responsible outside the National Assembly for opinions officially expressed or votes cast in the Assembly. --- (from https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Republic_of_Korea_1987.pdf https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Republic_of_K... linked elsewhere in this thread; "flagrante delicto" is a legal term of art for "being caught in the act". These provisions are similar to ones found in Article I section 6 of the US constitution.). Edit to give additional credit where it's due: According to the US Library of Congress, the US Speech or Debate clause is derived from a similar provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and was adopted as part of the US constitution without much discussion. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-2/ALDE_00013301/ https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S6-C1-3-... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

s1artibartfast 2y ago

Despite the National Assembly's resolution to end martial law, the military stated that it would remain in effect until ended by the president >Martial law will remain until the president lifts martial law"...Armored vehicles also seen in the city center https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0101&key=202412040135157140&pos= https://m.ytn.co.kr/news_view.php?s_mcd=0101&key=20241204013...

SauciestGNU 2y ago
Seems like everybody's staking out all-in positions here. Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups.
- robotnikman 2y ago
  As the saying goes- If you aim for the king, you better not miss
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups. They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.
  - s1artibartfast 2y ago
    The question is then what the Constitution says about a president who fails to execute his constitutional obligations, such as lifting martial law once it is nullified. Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations or a faster solution. I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.

pc86 2y ago

The President has said he will stand down martial law through the cabinet meeting. My understanding is that the parliamentary vote itself is not binding, but requires essentially a rubber stamp by the cabinet. They can decline to do so and the President wouldn't be legally required to stand down. Regardless, 190-0 is an overwhelming statement and if I was represented by one of the 110 absent members I would have a lot of very serious questions for them.

card_zero 2y ago
This is now done, the cabinet met and lifted the martial law (despite the time being about 5 in the morning).
summerlight 2y ago
No, the constitution mandates the president to stand down. The cabinet approval is just a procedural one to make the boundary clear between authorities. The supreme court's interpretation is that if they don't approve it within a reasonable time, the resolution will automatically take effect regardless of the cabinet.
ensignavenger 2y ago
It is my understanding that some members of parliament were having trouble making it in. It is also likely that they took the vote as soon as enough members were present to be legal, instead of waiting any longer for all the members of parliament to arrive. Of course, some may have taken their time in order to avoid voting on it.