Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@ Michael S:
I just saw this on the United For Israel FB page:
“The Rumbula massacre is a collective term for incidents on November 30 and December 8, 1941, in which about 25,000 Jews were killed in or on the way to Rumbula forest near Riga, Latvia, during the Holocaust. Except for the Babi Yar massacre in Ukraine, this was the biggest two-day Holocaust atrocity until the operation of the death camps.[1]…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumbula_massacre
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Hi, Sebastien. Dec. 8, which is probably already with you, is the Safe Haven Day for “settling judicial disputes over the elections”
— https://www.tellerreport.com/news/2020-12-08-%22safe-haven%22-day—–the-door-to-appeals-against-america-s-presidencies-is-about-to-close–and-trump-likens-it-to-the-third-world-elections.rk45fr_hiP.html
If history is allowed to be reasonably recorded in a Post-Biden America, it may be remembered as a “day of infamy” greater than Pearl Harbor Day.
@ Michael S:
Kim Basinger, Ann Coulter, and Sinead O’Connor’s birthday?
Dec. 7 is a day that will live on in infamy.
And Dec. 8 is,,, what?
@ Sebastien Zorn:
I was more than skeptical when I first heard of this plan of action (actually I was absolutely dismissive as it is fraught with serious obstacles and as many serious consequences). Since then, however, so much has happened. The evidence and witnesses are horrifying and keep multiplying. Now they are doing forensic inspections on the machines in 3 states – one machine in GA has already shown that the machines that count the ballots (this is all they are used for) can’t count the ballots accurately (and they don’t count them accurately with great precision). Then the changes at the DOD. And Gen. Flynn and Gen. McInerney both came out calling for Trump to do this should all else fail – and now another member of DOD has called to support it as well. All of this has greatly worn down my skepticism, but I am still not certain he will do it – only that he should.
I don’t know how the Supreme Court will rule on election issues. But that is a different thing from the issue of martial law and habeas corpus. These are originalist judges. They will be looking at the law for support on two different issues and should make the call accordingly. Supposedly, they will look at the election law for support, as it was originally intended at a federal level (as opposed to the state level). But the issue of martial law is another matter entirely. The supporting laws for this as written was not setup in 1938 as the election laws of Pennsylvania – it goes back to the writing of the constitution and further back to the establishment of English common law issues associated with the Petition of Right (~1630’s as I recall). I can see a reason how they could support one and not the other. And I believe there is a lot more evidence to be played out – I think there is a whole lot more.
As to the Pennsylvania case Alito scheduled for expedited decision, the lower courts won’t hear it but that is due to the nature of the courts and the content of some of the judges. But the Supreme Court will hear it. The case in Pennsylvania that Alito referenced is a curious one. But if they were just going to dismiss it, they would never have allowed an expedited hearing – they would have simply dismissed it and refused any hearing. They will make a ruling on it and they already know what that ruling will be (unless they changed their minds – that could have been the reason for the change of scheduling). If the courts fail to support Trump’s case on the election issues and the fraud issues, they may support him in the issue of using martial law and redoing the election. Or they may just say since it’s Donald Trump lets ignore the law and do what is good for China (as have we have seen time after time over the past 5 years)
The other option prior to the issue of martial law is the state legislatures, but I don’t have enough disgust and bile left in me to truly display my animus with these great statesmen or the Republican Party.
As to 2024, if Trump does not succeed now, I think 2024 will be lost to him and us all. Biden is China’s dog and one way or another Trump will not be an issue in 2024 (I believe this with complete certainty). China means to win this election one way or another, and if President Trump can prevent this he truly must. It is, as he referenced this week, “the most important [decision] I’ve ever made”.
@ peloni1986:
What makes you think the Supreme Court would back the President up? Look at the way Alito is behaving. If, he does declare martial law and the Supreme Court strikes it down, how would that affect his chances in 2024? On the other hand, it’s true, that if the rigged system isn’t dismantled, what are his chances, anyway? Is there a will to fix all this without him in charge, out there? I doubt it. What is to be done? Perhaps Trump will think of something. The solution, if there is a solution, will require out of the box thinking.
I@ Sebastien Zorn:
A very good question. The answer to which rests in the hands of a few judicial elites whose membership changes with time and as a consequence so do their decisions.
During the Civil War, Lincoln created several “classes” of citizens who could be detained and incarcerated that included prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy. It was easy to be listed in this class and difficult to be removed. Even after a sentence of say one year of imprisonment was served, the individual was constantly under threat of being returned to prison on some supposition – real or imagined. Under this decision partially suspending habeas corpus, John Merryman, a Maryland secessionist, was arrested. Chief Justice Taney (famous for being the author of the famous Dred Scott decision basically stating slavery could not be prohibited in the territories and ultimately accelerated the nation to a state of Civil War) issued a writ of habeas corpus regarding Merryman. Lincoln consequently made accommodations with the portion of the US Congress not in rebellion and ignored the Supreme Court regarding this issue thru the remainder of the course of the war. Ultimately, following the conclusion of the Civil War, Lincoln’s actions were ruled unconstitutional due to the fact that civilian courts could in fact function in the North. Accordingly, there was no need to refer all things regarding the special classes of civilians to military tribunals. As an aside this was the very manner in which Lincoln’s assassins were able to be executed with the most flimsy if not manufactured and imagined of evidence (but that is another story). The court ruled that military courts should only be used if civilian courts are unable to conduct normal business. This stated interpretation has been revisited often since then and it is not entirely settled law as to whether, in spite of the presence of martial law, either the executive or legislative branches has the ultimate ability to suspend habeas corpus.
There are in existence two major concepts of martial law relating to habeas corpus, each has had its day as law of the land and I am not sure how things would progress with the current Supreme Court (now with a majority of self-proclaimed originalists). The fist concept recognizes no real authority to declare martial law, it is enforced due to the natural circumstances of assumed unrest in the nation that prevents normal judiciary business from proceeding such as occurred during the War of 1812. In this scenario the circumstances and nature of events allows for and demands disuse of habeas corpus. This interpretation was found to be the superior interpretation and used in the early years of the republic. In the second and more currently relevant concept relating martial law and habeas corpus holds a biforcation of authority relating to suspension of habeas corpus during martial law. On one hand the courts have shown a disposition to disallow the use of military tribunals upon an executive decree without a clear mandate from the legistlative (basically the explanation is such that Congress has authority to declare war and so should be able to determine the exact nature of the war they declared regarding the US citizenry). This was the finding discussed above regarding its use in the Civil War. On the other hand, the executive has been allowed to disregard habeas corpus unilaterally. The use of martial law would basically require that Trump gain approval of either the Congress (unlikely) or the Supreme Court (as in all things controversial, they would prefer not being involved).
As to the result of a liberal judge vs a general’s decree under martial law, it would fall back to the decision of the Supreme Court and the very detailed findings of their opinion. I have always found it troubling that our republic, all questionable things ultimately are decided by a bare handful of judicial elites who are named as appointees with no direct support from the people upon whom their decisions apply. It is also true, however, that such elites should be most intimately familiar with a consistent interpretation of laws, and, as they are there for life, their decisions should be impartial as no favor should influence their opinions. But they may soon play a much bigger role than they have ever before done – unless they are able to find a loophole to jump thru in which they play no role at all (something they are usually want to do and yet unlikely in such a case as this).
peloni1986 Said:
What happens when a liberal judge comes into conflict with a general, or, vice versa, under martial law?
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Hi Sebastien
One of the greatest lessons to be gained from this past year – and there are many – is that when liberty yields to authority, no matter the bargain struck, it is always incumbent upon authority to restore liberty. And no authority invites restrictions easily.
The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. —THOMAS JEFFERSON, 1788
Who knew 14 days to slow the spread would truly be ten months and counting to return our liberties. I trust President Trump, and the return of normalcy, I believe, can only be achieved by him. But he does not control all things. The role of the army will be significant. The inter-phase between liberties and authority will in this case be rendered by the interactions of the public and the army. The army is not trained or intended to interact in a police type vocation. This would be a great concern. The public would have to make great accommodations and acquiesce to this interaction, as would the army. Beyond this civilian-military interaction, the leadership in the military is only a concern to me due to the moves that were put in place under the Obama administration. I am told that many generals were removed and more liberal leaning soldiers were promoted thru the ranks carrying with them their sick doctrine of racist taunting known discussed and taught from the book “White Fragility”. I know Trump recently dealt with this issue, but only very recently and I do find it’s possible effects concerning. Should things go badly in the courts and the legislatures(most of the legislators are useless tools of their respective greater party), I think we would have no choice, but having no choice, as you expressed, seems a dangerous place to be. But it is where we are.
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Regarding the suspension of habeas corpus in the Civil War, Lincoln was initially faced with a great deal of unrest in Maryland, a state that was deeply divided in its sentiments regarding the election of 1860. Initially, he did suspend habeas corpus in Maryland alone. This, however, did not remain the case. Later in the war, he expanded the suspension to the entire of the Union States. He arrested newspaper editors in Pennsylvania, congressmen in Ohio and elsewhere, as well as other less notable individuals, and was able to hold them indefinitely. His generals used this policy with great effect to suppress what would be called today as “mostly peaceful protests” by members of the Left. But anyone suspected of collusion with the South or having sympathies with the South were in great peril. The suppression of vocal dissent of any form is very helpful in times of insurrection. Their was no need to discuss or prove the culpability of an individual to any level beyond the opinion of a local magistrate or general. Incarceration was not without the ability to petition release, but that process could take months and was easily dismissed. This being said, there was still open debate among the North, and Lincoln being Lincoln, never did anything in a vacuum. He was constantly in discussions with Congressional leaders regarding his actions and those of his generals, who again were the real beneficiaries of this policy. He, also, did not cancel the election of 1864.
The military was totally loyal to Washington and Lincoln. How far can we trust the military leadership? Remember when Esper defied Trump? Once the Constitution is suspended, can the situation be used by the other side? JFK was elected through fraud and Nixon knew it but he was afraid of damaging the presidency. True, we have genuine foreign collusion here. But, Washington and Lincoln did that during wars actually in progress. We might, instead, wind up with Wilson. But, during peacetime. It has been pointed out that the US came the closest it has ever come to fascism under Wilson. What if they get rid of Trump but keep martial law. Also, I don’t think Lincoln, correct me, if I am wrong, suspended habeus corpus throughout the US. Just in Copperhead states. Not to compare this situation, in any other respect, but both Hitler, Petain and Lasalle of Vichy France, and Mosadegh of Iran, made themselves dictators by invoking and even getting the legislatures to ratify “temporary” martial law suspending civil liberties and habeus corpus. The, we have Chile under PInochet. It’s very dangerous and unpredictable territory. We have the oldest unbroken constitution in the world. Fraud and Corruption we have survived. Martial law in peacetime. I don’t know.