SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (119851)6/13/2005 2:49:01 PM
From: Lane3   of 793936
 
Now, wouldn't that qualify as 'losing the Constitution' for those affected?

The President is authorized to do that under the Constitution, no? Which means the Constitution would be alive and well and functioning, even if temporarily in a somewhat altered state.

Now, if the whole country were put under martial law and the SOBs in power got to liking it that way and opted not to restore normal operations once the emergency had passed, then one could say the Constitution was lost. But then it would have been the SOBs who did it, not the terrorists. Terrorism was only the trigger.

You know, we don't have the experience with martial law to know how things play out, but I'd bet that the normal institutions would continue to function to the extent that anything functioned. Somehow I can't imagine the military taking over the running of family court. If the infrastructure were too badly damaged, survivors would just go elsewhere, where martial law was not in place.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News