While our political leaders have a lot on their hands at the moment, even suggesting that they might impose martial law is unwarranted. Americans are following the principle of the rule of law and civil government. In the 1866 case of Ex parte Milligan, which concerned President Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeas corpus during the Civil War, a plurality of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Chase declared, “Where peace exists the laws of peace must prevail.”Īmerica is a “government of laws, not of men,” John Adams famously wrote. In California and elsewhere, Americans are rising to this challenge by voluntarily social distancing, observing restrictions on the times they may shop for specific items, and generally helping each other through this crisis. But there is no indication of any lawlessness or civil unrest. The current situation doubtlessly will present many challenges in the weeks and months ahead. But the desire to enforce social distancing related to reducing the spread of the novel coronavirus does not appear to meet this standard. In each of the above cases, there had been such a breakdown of the ability of civil government to maintain order that temporary military rule had become a last resort. In one incident that became known as “The Battle of Blair Mountain,” the armed conflict became so widespread that order was restored only when President Harding declared martial law for the entire state and deployed troops carrying machine guns and planes armed with gas bombs. In the early 20th century, widespread violence between striking coal miners and union-busters in West Virginia resulted in several declarations of martial law. Violence and riots in the aftermath prompted Mayor Eugene Schmitz to declare the troops “have been authorized by me to kill any and all persons found engaged in Looting or in the Commission of Any Other Crime.” Though there never was an official declaration, troops were deployed in San Francisco following the massive earthquake of 1906 and the subsequent fires that wiped out large swaths of the city. And they … threw the Constitution into the discard and set up a military dictatorship.” Poindexter declared lawfully martial law but the Army went beyond the governor and set up that which was lawful only in conquered enemy territory namely, military government which is not bound by the Constitution. The declaration of martial law in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II lasted for almost three years, an action later criticized by federal Magistrate Judge J. These examples include military emergencies, natural disasters and widespread civil unrest. In United States history, martial law or its equivalent has been put into practice only where there has been a complete breakdown of the rule of law such that life, liberty and property were placed in imminent danger. While the legal interpretations of the contours of the constitutional authority to declare martial law in the United States have waxed and waned over time, it is clear that the declaration of martial law is a remedy appropriate for only the most extreme circumstances. Accordingly, “certain civil liberties may be suspended, such as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, freedom of association and freedom of movement.” Even the deployment of the National Guard or other troops to aid in humanitarian relief is allowed under such a scenario.īut a declaration of martial law is a different matter.Īlthough there is no precise definition of martial law, it generally can be summed up as the suspension of rule by the civil government in place of control by military authorities. In the case of outbreaks of disease, the power of states to enforce quarantines or even vaccinate individuals against their will has been recognized. These actions have occurred pursuant to what is known as the “police power,” or the limited but general power of states to regulate the health, safety and morals of their citizens. These include canceling large events, closing schools, ordering private businesses be shuttered, and even institution shelter-in-place orders. In the wake of the outbreak of coronavirus, state officials have taken extraordinary steps to prevent the virus’s spread, which only a month ago seemed unthinkable. While the current pandemic presents a public health crisis unlike anything the world has seen since the Spanish flu of 1918, even the worst-case scenario does not currently justify a declaration of martial law in California or elsewhere in the United States. “We have the ability to do martial law … if we feel the necessity,” Newsom stated at a news conference on March 17. Gavin Newsom announced that the continued spread of COVID-19 in California could necessitate the imposition of martial law.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |