How Do You Get Food With Martial Law?

How Do You Get Food With Martial Law
There are a few ways to get food in a time of martial law. One way to get food is to grow your own. This can be done by growing vegetables in your garden or by raising chickens or rabbits. It is important to have a well-stocked pantry, too, in case there is a food shortage. Another way to get food is to stockpile it.

What is entailed in martial law?

Martial Law in Times of Civil Disorder Martial law involves the temporary substitution of military authority for civilian rule and is usually invoked in time of war, rebellion, or natural disaster. When martial law is in effect, the military commander of an area or country has unlimited authority to make and enforce laws.

Martial law is justified when civilian authority has ceased to function, is completely absent, or has become ineffective. Further, martial law suspends all existing laws, as well as civil authority and the ordinary administration of justice. In the United States, martial law may be declared by proclamation of the President or a State governor, but such a formal proclamation is not necessary.

Although the U.S. Constitution makes no specific provision for the imposition of martial law, nearly every State has a constitutional provision authorizing the government to impose martial law. The power of martial law, once held to be nearly absolute, has limitations; for example, civilians may not be tried by military tribunals as long as civilian courts are functional.

Nonetheless, within the bounds of court decisions, a military commander’s authority under martial law is virtually unlimited. Martial law has been declared nine times since World War II and, in five instances, was designed to counter resistance to Federal desegregation decrees in the South. Although a climate of mutual aid has always existed between the military and civilian law enforcement and should continue to exist, Department of Defense personnel are limited in what they can do to enforce civil law.

Military personnel cannot be used in surveillance or undercover operations, and they may not be used as informants, investigators, or interrogators unless the investigation is a joint military-civilian operation in which the military has an interest in the case’s outcome.

When can you declare martial law in the Philippines?

We strongly support the declaration of martial law in Mindanao effective on 23 May 2017 by President Rodrigo Roa Duterte. We condemn in no uncertain terms the spate of violence and hostilities in the City of Marawi allegedly perpetrated by suspected members of the Maute Group, which has cost the loss of lives, the destruction of several properties, the disruption of services of vital public installations and services, and instilling fear and anxiety on the general populace.

  • Article VII, Section 18 of the 1987 Constitution empowers the President of the Republic to declare martial law for a period not exceeding 60 days in cases of rebellion and invasion, when public safety requires it.
  • We believe that the act of President Duterte in declaring martial law is indeed a decisive move on the part of the country’s commander-in-chief in order to immediately suppress lawless violence and neutralize the tense situation in Marawi City at the soonest possible time to prevent the violence from spreading further to other parts of the country.

As local chief executives, we commit to be more vigilant in ensuring peace and security in our respective areas of jurisdiction to prevent the escalation of lawless violence and we extend our assistance and support to our beleaguered brothers and sisters as we continue to pray for sustained peace in our nation, especially in Mindanao. How Do You Get Food With Martial Law GOV. EDGAR M. CHATTO Secretary-General Attested by: How Do You Get Food With Martial Law GOV. AL FRANCIS C. BICHARA National Chairman How Do You Get Food With Martial Law GOV. RYAN LUIS V. SINGSON National President Click here to get a copy of the originally signed document in PDF Format.

What is UK martial law?

Finland – The Preparedness Act (SDK 1552/2011, Finnish: valmiuslaki) is a law in Finnish legislation, enacted in accordance with the constitutional procedure. The purpose of the Act is to give the authorities sufficient powers in times of war and other exceptional circumstances.

How many times has the US government declared martial law?

Legal basis – The martial law concept in the United States is closely tied to the right of habeas corpus, which is, in essence, the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment, or more broadly, the supervision of law enforcement by the judiciary.

The ability to suspend habeas corpus is related to the imposition of martial law. Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states, “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” There have been many instances of the use of the military within the borders of the United States, such as during the Whiskey Rebellion and in the South during the Civil Rights Movement, but those acts are not tantamount to a declaration of martial law.

Deployment of troops does not necessarily mean that the civil courts cannot function, which is one of the keys, as the US Supreme Court noted, to martial law. In United States law, martial law is limited by several court decisions that were handed down between the American Civil War and World War II,

In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids US military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval. Throughout history, martial law has been imposed at least 68 times in limited, usually local areas of the United States. Martial law was declared for these reasons: Twice for war or invasion, seven times for domestic war or insurrection, eleven times for riot or civil unrest, 29 times for labor dispute, four times for natural disaster and fifteen times for other reasons.

Habeas corpus was suspended federally only once in 1863 during the Civil War.

What happens to civilians during martial law?

Martial Law or Domestic Military Assistance? – The defining feature of martial law is the displacement of the civilian government by the military. When martial law is in effect, military commanders, not elected officials, make laws; soldiers, not local police, enforce laws; and ordinary citizens accused of defying martial law might face military tribunals instead of civilian courts.

Civilian governments rarely invoke martial law. Since the United States was founded in 1776, government officials have declared martial law roughly 68 times, Federal and state authorities are much more likely to request “domestic military assistance,” which is not the same as martial law. Domestic military assistance supports, rather than supplants, civilian government.

For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, federal troops used military helicopters to conduct search and rescue missions that local governments were unable to do themselves. In 1992, President George H.W. Bush deployed the National Guard to help state and local law enforcement suppress riots in Los Angeles.

What are my rights during martial law?

Understanding Martial Law – The declaration of martial law is a rare and momentous decision for a civilian government to make and for good reason. When martial law is declared, civilian control of some or all aspects of government operations is ceded to the military.

This means that, in the case of elected governments, the representatives chosen by the voting population are no longer in power. Civilians have ceded control of the country in exchange for the potential restoration of order, with the possibility that control may not be reclaimed in the future. When martial law is declared, civil liberties—such as the right to free movement, free speech, or protection from unreasonable searches—can be suspended.

The justice system that typically handles issues of criminal and civil law is replaced with a military justice system, such as a military tribunal. Civilians may be arrested for violating curfews or for offenses that, in normal times, would not be considered serious enough to warrant detention.

What happens during martial law in the Philippines?

This article is about several periods of martial law in the Philippines. For Ferdinand Marcos’ declaration of martial law, see Proclamation No.1081, For Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao, see Proclamation No.216, Martial law in the Philippines ( Filipino : Batas Militar sa Pilipinas ) refers to the various historical instances in which the Philippine head of state placed all or part of the country under military control – most prominently : 111  during the administration of Ferdinand Marcos, but also during the Philippines’ colonial period, during the second world war, and more recently on the island of Mindanao during the administrations of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Rodrigo Duterte,

The alternative term ” Martial Law Era ” as applied to the Philippines is typically used to describe the Marcos martial law period specifically. Martial law has historically been implemented through the Armed Forces of the Philippines and its predecessor bodies, serving as the head of state’s primary tool for implementing political power in a reversal of the normal practice of civilian control of the military,

Under the current Constitution of the Philippines, the President, as head of state and commander in chief of the armed forces, may declare Martial Law “in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it.” Most countries use a different legal construct like ” state of emergency “.

How long does martial law last?

The Sunday edition of the Philippines Daily Express on September 24, 1972, the only newspaper published after the announcement of martial law on September 21, the evening prior. At 7:17 pm on September 23, 1972, President Ferdinand Marcos announced on television that he had placed the entirety of the Philippines under martial law,

This marked the beginning of a 14-year period of one-man rule that would effectively last until Marcos was exiled from the country on February 25, 1986. Even though the formal document proclaiming martial law – Proclamation No.1081, which was dated September 21, 1972 – was formally lifted on January 17, 1981, Marcos retained essentially all of his powers as dictator until he was ousted.

While the period of Philippine history in which Marcos was in power actually began seven years earlier, when he was first inaugurated president of the Philippines in late 1965, this article deals specifically with the period where he exercised dictatorial powers under martial law, and the period in which he continued to wield those powers despite technically lifting the proclamation of martial law in 1981.

When he declared martial law in 1972, Marcos claimed that he had done so in response to the “communist threat” posed by the newly founded Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), and the sectarian “rebellion” of the Mindanao Independence Movement (MIM). Opposition figures of the time, such as Lorenzo Tañada, Jose W.

How to protect your food(ft.Del Pilar and martial law) short🙂

Diokno, and Jovito Salonga, accused Marcos of exaggerating these threats, using them as a convenient excuse to consolidate power and extend his tenure beyond the two presidential terms allowed by the 1935 constitution. After Marcos was ousted, government investigators discovered that the declaration of martial law had also allowed the Marcoses to hide secret stashes of unexplained wealth that various courts later determined to be “of criminal origin”.

  1. This 14-year period in Philippine history is remembered for the administration’s record of human rights abuses, particularly targeting political opponents, student activists, journalists, religious workers, farmers, and others who fought against the Marcos dictatorship,
  2. Based on the documentation of Amnesty International, Task Force Detainees of the Philippines, and similar human rights monitoring entities, historians believe that the Marcos dictatorship was marked by 3,257 known extrajudicial killings, 35,000 documented tortures, 77 ‘disappeared’, and 70,000 incarcerations.

: 16

Is martial law still in the Philippines?

The anniversary of the declaration of martial law is on September 23 (not September 21) How Do You Get Food With Martial Law “FM Declares Martial Law”—the headline of the September 24, 1972 issue of the Sunday Express, which was the Sunday edition of Philippines Daily Express. The Daily Express was the only newspaper allowed to circulate upon the declaration of Martial Law President Ferdinand E.

  • Marcos signed Proclamation No.1081 on September 21, 1972, placing the Philippines under Martial Law.
  • Some sources say that Marcos signed the proclamation on September 17 or on September 22—but, in either case, the document itself was dated September 21.
  • Throughout the Martial Law period, Marcos built up the cult of September 21, proclaiming it as National Thanksgiving Day by virtue of Proclamation No.1180 s.1973 to memorialize the date as the foundation day of his New Society.

The propaganda effort was so successful that up to the present, many Filipinos—particularly those who did not live through the events of September 23, 1972—labor under the misapprehension that martial law was proclaimed on September 21, 1972. It was not.

The culmination of a long period of preparation The facts are clear. A week before the actual declaration of Martial Law, a number of people had already received information that Marcos had drawn up a plan to completely take over the government and gain absolute rule. Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr., during a September 13, 1972 privilege speech, exposed what was known as “Oplan Sagittarius.” The Senator said he had received a top-secret military plan given by Marcos himself to place Metro Manila and outlying areas under the control of the Philippine Constabulary as a prelude to Martial Law.

Marcos was going to use a series of bombings in Metro Manila, including the 1971 Plaza Miranda bombing, as a justification for his takeover and subsequent authoritarian rule. In his own diary, Marcos wrote on September 14, 1972 that he informed the military that he would proceed with proclaiming Martial Law.

Even the U.S. Embassy in Manila knew as early as September 17, 1972 about Marcos’ plan. This was indeed the culmination of a long period of preparation: As early as May 17, 1969, Marcos hinted the declaration of Martial Law, when he addressed the Philippine Military Academy Alumni Association : One of my favorite mental exercises, which others may find useful, is to foresee possible problems one may have to face in the future and to determine what solutions can possibly be made to meet these problems.

For instance, if I were suddenly asked, to pose a given situation, to decide in five minutes when and where to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, I have decided that there should be at least five questions that I would ask, and depending on the answers to these five questions, I would know when and where to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

  • The same thing is true with the declaration of martial law It is a useful mental exercise to meet a problem before it happens.
  • In his memoir, then Justice Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile recalled that on a late afternoon in December 1969, Marcos instructed him to study the powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief under the provisions of the 1935 Constitution,

Marcos made this instruction as he ” an escalation of violence and disorder in the country and to know the extent of his powers as commander-in-chief.” The President also stressed that “the study must be done discreetly and confidentially.” At about the same time, Marcos also instructed Executive Secretary Alejandro Melchor and Jose Almonte to study how Martial Law was implemented in different parts of the world.

  1. Marcos also wanted to know the consequences of declaring Martial Law.
  2. The result of their study stated that, “while Martial Law may accelerate development, in the end the Philippines would become a political archipelago, with debilitating, factionalized politics.” Almonte recalled that their findings led to the conclusion that “the nation would be destroyed because, apart from the divisiveness it would cause, Martial Law would offer Marcos absolute power which would corrupt absolutely.” By the end of January 1970, Enrile, with the help of Efren Plana and Minerva Gonzaga Reyes, submitted the only copy of the confidential report on the legal nature and extent of Martial Law to Marcos.

A week later, Marcos summoned Enrile and instructed him to prepare the documents to implement Martial Law in the Philippines. In his January 1971 diary entries, Marcos discussed how he met with business leaders, intellectuals from the University of the Philippines, and the military to lay the groundwork that extreme measures would be needed in the future.

On May 8, 1972, Marcos confided in his diary that he had instructed the military to update its plans, including the list of personalities to be arrested, and had met with Enrile to finalize the legal paperwork required. On August 1, 1972, Marcos met with Enrile and a few of his most trusted military commanders to discuss tentative dates for the declaration of Martial Law—to fall within the next two months.

All of the dates they considered either ended in seven or were divisible by seven, as Marcos considered seven his lucky number. The last days of democracy How Do You Get Food With Martial Law Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr. delivers a privilege speech on the Senate floor on September 21, 1972—two days before Martial Law was declared and implemented. (From A Garrison State in the Make, p.353) On September 21, 1972, democracy was still functioning in the Philippines.

Senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr. was still able to deliver a privilege speech—what would be his final one—in the Senate. Primitivo Mijares, among others, recounted the functioning of the House of Representatives and the Senate, with committee meetings scheduled for that night. Senate and House leaders agreed not to adjourn on this day, as earlier scheduled.

They decided to extend their special session to a sine die adjournment on September 23. That afternoon, a protest march in Plaza Miranda was sponsored by the Concerned Christians for Civil Liberties. The rally was attended by more than 30 “civic, religious, labor, student, and activist groups a crowd of 30,000,” and received coverage from newspapers, radio, and television. How Do You Get Food With Martial Law A mass rally organized by the Movement of Concerned Citizens for Civil Liberties (MCCCL) was held at Plaza Miranda in Quiapo. (Photo courtesy of Philippines Free Press Magazine) In his diary, Marcos wrote that he, together with members of his Cabinet and staff, finished the preparation of Proclamation 1081 at 8 PM, September 21.

On September 22, 1972, a day after the final speech of Ninoy Aquino, newspapers still came out: they featured the rally held the previous day in Plaza Miranda. Mijares recounted that Marcos was agitated by a statement reported in the Daily Express that if Martial Law were declared, Aquino said he would have to be arrested soon after or he would escape to join the resistance.

The Enrile ambush as pretext for Martial Law The pretext for Martial Law was provided later in the evening of Friday, September 22, 1972, the convoy of Secretary of Defense Juan Ponce Enrile was ambushed in Wack-Wack as he was on his way home to Dasmariñas Village in Makati before 9 p.m.

Enrile recalled his convoy was driving out of Camp Aguinaldo when a car opened fire at his convoy and sped away. A contrasting account came from Oscar Lopez, who lived along Notre Dame Street, Wack Wack Village, stated that he heard a lot of shooting and that when he went out to see what was happening, he saw an empty car riddled with bullets.

Lopez’s driver, who happened to see the incident, narrated that “there was a car that came and stopped beside a Meralco post. Some people got out of the car, and then there was another car that came by beside it and started riddling it with bullets to make it look like it was ambushed.” This ambush, as Enrile later revealed in 1986, was staged by Marcos to justify Martial Law. How Do You Get Food With Martial Law Excerpt from the diary of Ferdinand E. Marcos on September 22, 1972. From the Philippine Diary Project, Marcos, in his diary entry for September 22, 1972 (time-stamped 9:55 p.m.) wrote, “Sec. Juan Ponce Enrile was ambushed near Wack-Wack at about 8:00 pm tonight.

It was a good thing he was riding in his security car as a protective measure This makes the martial law proclamation a necessity.” His diary entry for September 25, 1972 mentions conditions after two days of Martial Law, also indicating martial law in reality is dated to September 23, 1972. Primitivo Mijares—a former journalist for Marcos who would later write against Marcos and disappear without a trace in 1973—claimed that the Enrile ambush was fake as it was made as the final excuse for Marcos to declare Martial Law.

Mijares also claimed that the ammunition planted by the Presidential Guard Battalion in Digoyo Point, Isabela—which was later confiscated by the Philippine Constabulary on July 5, 1972—was used to connect the ambush with alleged Communist terror attacks.

In the biography of Chino Roces, Vergel Santos questioned the elements of the Enrile ambush: “Why inside a village and not on a public street, and why in that particular village? Possibly for easier stage-managing: the family of Enrile’s sister Irma and her husband, Dr. Victor Potenciano, lived there, in Fordham, the next street in the Potenciano home and got the story straight from him, as officially scripted.” September 21 or September 23? When Marcos appeared on television at 7:15 p.m.

on September 23, 1972 to announce that he had placed the “entire Philippines under Martial Law” by virtue of Proclamation No.1081, he framed his announcement in legalistic terms that were untrue. This helped camouflage the true nature of his act to this day: it was nothing less than a self-coup.

  1. Marcos announced that he had placed the entire country under Martial Law as of 9 p.m.
  2. On September 22, 1972 via a proclamation which, he claimed, he’d signed on September 21, 1972.
  3. Yet accounts differ.
  4. David Rosenberg, writing in the Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars (“The End of the Freest Press in the World,” Vol.5, 1973) chronicled that about six hours after the ambush, Marcos signed Proclamation No.1081, placing the entire country under Martial Law, placing the signing at around 3 a.m.
See also:  When Did Ice T Join Law And Order?

on September 23. Raymond Bonner, in his book Waltzing with the Dictator, narrated his interview with Enrile, during which the former Defense Secretary recalled that he and Acting Executive Secretary Roberto Reyes witnessed Marcos sign Proclamation No.1081 in the morning of September 23, 1972.

The Bangkok Post asserted in a series of articles called “The Aquino Papers,” published from February 20 to 22 of 1973, that Proclamation No.1081 had been signed even earlier, on September 17, 1972, postdated to September 21. Mijares also mentioned in his book that Marcos said as much in an address to a conference of historians, in January 1973.

Two things emerge: first, whether they conflict or not, all accounts indicate that Marcos’ obsession with numerology (particularly the number seven) necessitated that Proclamation No.1081 be officially signed on a date that was divisible by seven. Thus, September 21, 1972 became the official date that Martial Law was established and the day that the Marcos dictatorship began.

This also allowed Marcos to control history on his own terms. Day one of the Marcos dictatorship The second is that the arbitrary date emphasizes that the actual date for Martial Law was not the numerologically-auspicious (for Marcos) 21st, but rather, the moment that Martial Law was put into full effect, which was after the nationwide address of Ferdinand Marcos as far as the nation was concerned: September 23, 1972.

By then, personalities considered threats to Marcos (Senators Benigno S. Aquino Jr., Jose Diokno, Francisco Rodrigo and Ramon Mitra Jr., and members of the media such as Joaquin Roces, Teodoro Locsin Sr., Maximo Soliven and Amando Doronila) had already been rounded up, starting with the arrest of Senator Aquino at midnight on September 22, and going into the early morning hours of September 23, when 100 of the 400 personalities targeted for arrest were already detained in Camp Crame by 4 a.m.

  • In the meantime, the military had shut down mass media, flights were canceled, and incoming overseas calls were prohibited.
  • Press Secretary Francisco Tatad went on air at 3 p.m.
  • Of September 23 to read the text of Proclamation No.1081.
  • The reading of the proclamation was followed by Marcos going on air at 7:15 p.m.

to justify the massive clampdown of democratic institutions in the country. Marcos would subsequently issue General Order No.1, s.1972, transferring all powers to the President who was to rule by decree. The New York Times reported about these events in an article titled “Mass Arrests and Curfew Announced in Philippines; Mass Arrests Ordered in Philippines” in their September 24, 1972 issue.

  • The Daily Express itself announced in its September 24 issue that Marcos had proclaimed martial law the day before, September 23, 1972.
  • Never again” After the declaration and imposition of Martial Law, citizens would still go on to challenge the constitutionality of Proclamation No.1081.
  • Those arrested filed petitions for habeas corpus with the Supreme Court.

But Marcos, who had originally announced that Martial Law would not supersede the 1935 Constitution, engineered the replacement of the constitution with a new one. On March 31, 1973, the Supreme Court issued its final decision in Javellana v. Executive Secretary, which essentially validated the 1973 Constitution.

This would be the final legitimizing decision with on the constitutionality of Martial Law: in G.R. No. L-35546 September 17, 1974, the Supreme Court dismissed petitions for habeas corpus by ruling that Martial Law was a political question beyond the jurisdiction of the court; and that, furthermore, the court had already deemed the 1973 Constitution in full force and effect, replacing the 1935 Constitution.

Martial Law would officially end on January 17, 1981 with Proclamation No.2045, Marcos, however, would reserve decree-making powers for himself. Today, the 1987 Constitution safeguards our institutions from a repeat of Marcos’ Martial Law regime. The Supreme Court is empowered to review all official acts to determine if there has been grave abuse of discretion.

  1. Congress cannot be padlocked.
  2. Martial Law is limited in duration and effects, even if contemplated by a president.
  3. Section 18 of Article VII of the current Constitution provides: Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress.

The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it.

The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without any need of a call. The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing.

A state of martial law does not suspend the operation of the Constitution, nor supplant the functioning of the civil courts or legislative assemblies, nor authorize the conferment of jurisdiction on military courts and agencies over civilians where civil courts are able to function, nor automatically suspend the privilege of the writ.

Bibliography Almonte, Jose T. and Marites Dañguilan Vitug, Endless Journey: A Memoir. Quezon City: Cleverheads Publishing, 2015. Bonner, Raymond, Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy, New York: Times Books, 1987. Enrile, Juan Ponce, Juan Ponce Enrile: A Memoir, Quezon City, ABS-CBN Publishing Inc., 2012.

Hedman, Eva-Lotta E. and John Thayer Sidel, Philippine Politics and Society in the Twentieth Century: Colonial Legacies, Post- Colonial Trajectories, London: Routledge, 2005. Mijares, Primitivo, The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos I,

  • New York: Union Square Publications, 1986.
  • Rodrigo, Raul, Phoenix: The Saga of the Lopez Family Volume 1: 1800 – 1972.
  • Manila: Eugenio Lopez Foundation, Inc., 2007.
  • Santos, Vergel O., Chino and His Time.
  • Pasig: Anvil, 2010.
  • Endnotes Raymond Bonner, Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy (New York: Times Books, 1987), p.3.

Juan Ponce Enrile, Juan Ponce Enrile: A Memoir (Quezon City, ABS-CBN Publishing Inc., 2012), p.275. Juan Ponce Enrile, Juan Ponce Enrile: A Memoir (Quezon City, ABS-CBN Publishing Inc., 2012), p.275. Jose T. Almonte and Marites Dañguilan Vitug, Endless Journey: A Memoir (Quezon City: Cleverheads Publishing, 2015), p.77.

  • Juan Ponce Enrile, Juan Ponce Enrile: A Memoir, (Quezon City, ABS-CBN Publishing Inc., 2012), p.276.
  • Raymond Bonner, Waltzing with a Dictator: The Marcoses and the Making of American Policy (New York: Times Books, 1987), p.95.
  • Primitivo Mijares, The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos I,

(New York: Union Square Publications, 1986), p.54. Eva-Lotta E. Hedman and John Thayer Sidel, Philippine Politics and Society in the Twentieth Century: Colonial Legacies, Post- Colonial Trajectories (London: Routledge, 2005), p.129. Raul Rodrigo, Phoenix: The Saga of the Lopez Family Volume 1: 1800 – 1972, Manila: Eugenio Lopez Foundation, Inc., 2007), p.377 Primitivo Mijares, The Conjugal Dictatorship of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos I,

Is it illegal to fight UK?

A man who is attacked or believes that he is about to be attacked may use such force as is both necessary and reasonable in order to defend himself. If that is what he does then he acts lawfully.

Does martial law mean no laws?

What Is Martial Law? – While not specifically defined in the U.S. Constitution, many legal experts consider martial law to be the use of military personnel to dramatically assist or completely replace a nation’s normal legal system in times of emergency.

Whether any given use of the military rises to the level of martial law is tied to exactly how much military support or action is used. Under total martial law, the normal American law enforcement and legal system is replaced by a stricter set of laws and punishments that is completely controlled by the military or executive branch of the government.

The normal checks and balances system built into the Constitution is suspended. Though debated in some legal discussions, martial law can also occur in stages, without ever getting to total takeover by the military. Under current U.S. law, the president, Congress or a local military commander may impose degrees of martial law under specific situations.

Can you fight back in the UK?

You can use reasonable force to protect yourself or others if a crime is taking place inside your home. This means you can:

protect yourself ‘in the heat of the moment’ – this includes using an object as a weapon stop an intruder running off – for example by tackling them to the ground

There’s no specific definition of ‘reasonable force’ – it depends on the circumstances. If you only did what you honestly thought was necessary at the time, this would provide strong evidence that you acted within the law. Read guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service (PDF, 136KB),

carry on attacking the intruder even if you’re no longer in danger pre-plan a trap for someone – rather than involve the police

Is Russia under martial law?

2022 Russian martial law

First page of the Russian Presidential Decree “On the introduction of martial law in the territories of the Donetsk People’s Republic, Luhansk People’s Republic, and Zaporizhzhia and Kherson Regions”
Date 20 October 2022–present
Location Russia
Also known as Maximum level of response, Average level of response, Level of high readiness, Level of basic readiness

Martial law in Russia was introduced on 20 October 2022 during the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine and a month after the announcement of mobilization, President Vladimir Putin issued two decrees : “On the introduction of martial law in the territories of the DPR, LPR, Zaporozhye and Kherson Oblasts” and “On measures taken in the constituent entities of the Russian Federation in connection with Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated October 19, 2022 No.756”.

Martial law has been introduced in full on the territories of Ukraine annexed by Russia ( Donetsk People’s Republic, Luhansk People’s Republic, Kherson Oblast, Zaporizhzhia Oblast ). In the regions bordering Ukraine – Bryansk, Kursk, Belgorod, Voronezh, Rostov Oblasts, Krasnodar Krai, as well as in the annexed Crimea and Sevastopol, a “medium level of response” was introduced, in other regions of the Central and the Southern Federal Districts – “level of high readiness”, and in other subjects of the Russian Federation – “level of basic readiness”.

Officials said after the decrees were issued that no measures were planned to restrict life and freedom of movement. The martial law regime was introduced for the first time in the modern history of Russia, The last time the regime of martial law on the territory of modern Russia was introduced in the USSR in May 1943 during the Second World War,

Who can declare war?

The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. Congress has declared war on 11 occasions, including its first declaration of war with Great Britain in 1812. Congress approved its last formal declaration of war during World War II. Since that time it has agreed to resolutions authorizing the use of military force and continues to shape U.S.

What is an example of martial law?

Part I: What is Martial Law? – “Martial law” has no established definition. footnote1_am0q6r0 1 Duncan, 327 U.S. at 315 (“The term martial law carries no precise meaning.”). In the United States, however, the military’s domestic activities typically fall into one of three categories.

First, the armed forces sometimes assist civilian authorities with “non–law enforcement” functions. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the military deployed helicopters along the Gulf Coast to carry out search-and-rescue missions that local governments were unable to do themselves.

Second, and far less frequently, the military assists civilian authorities with “law enforcement” activities. For example, state and federal troops were deployed to help police suppress the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Third, on some occasions, the military has taken the place of the civilian government.

This is what happened in Hawaii during World War II. Usually, but not always, the term “martial law” refers to the third category. It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police.

Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. footnote2_5dtbtho 2 William C. Banks and Stephen Dycus, Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 198; John Fabian Witt, “A Lost Theory of American Emergency Constitutionalism,” Law and History Review 36 (August 2018): 581–83; Stephen I.

Vladeck, “The Field Theory: Martial Law, the Suspension Power, and the Insurrection Act,” Temple Law Review 80 (Summer 2007): 391–439; Stephen I. Vladeck, “Emergency Power and the Militia Acts,” Yale Law Journal 114 (Fall 2004): 149, 162; and George M. Dennison, “Martial Law: The Development of a Theory of Emergency Powers, 1776–1861,” American Journal of Legal History 18 (January 1974): 61.

This is a dramatic departure from normal practice in the United States. The U.S. military, when allowed to act domestically at all, is ordinarily limited to assisting civilian authorities. Martial law turns that relationship on its head. The displacement of civilian government distinguishes it from other emergency powers, such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

Suspending the writ allows the government to detain and hold individuals without charge but does not imply any unusual role for the armed forces. While a declaration of martial law might be accompanied by a suspension of habeas corpus, they are distinct concepts. Martial law has not always meant what it does today.

See also:  How Do You Change An Unjust Law?

The term first appeared in England in the 1530s during the reign of King Henry VIII. footnote3_0oiy0w8 3 John M. Collins, Martial Law and English Laws, c.1500–c.1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 27. At that time and for centuries afterward, martial law generally referred to what is now called “military law.” footnote4_yhndtj9 4 Collins, Martial Law and English Laws, 3–7; and Dennison, “Martial Law,” 52.

This is the law that applies when a soldier is court-martialed. In the modern United States, it is codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice. footnote5_3jiqh6q 5 Uniform Code of Military Justice, 64 Stat.109, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946.U.S. law did not recognize martial law as an emergency power until the mid-19th century.

Before that time, the idea of allowing military rule in an emergency was considered outrageous — as evidenced by the national reaction to the first declaration of martial law in U.S. history. In December 1814, toward the end of the War of 1812, Gen. Andrew Jackson led a small army in the defense of New Orleans against a much larger invading British force.

As part of his defensive preparations, Jackson imposed martial law on the city. He censored the press, enforced a curfew, and detained numerous civilians without charge. Moreover, he continued military rule for more than two months after his famous victory at the Battle of New Orleans had ended any real threat from the British.

footnote6_0jhkz3a 6 Matthew Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law: Nationalism, Civil Liberties, and Partisanship (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2006), 19–46. Jackson argued that his actions were justified because the government in New Orleans had ceased to function as a result of the impending British attack, leaving the military as the only body able to protect the city.

In that situation, he claimed, the military had the authority to do anything that was “necessary” to preserve New Orleans. footnote7_ynrti80 7 Dennison, “Martial Law,” 61–62; and Vladeck, “Field Theory,” 422. This was a novel argument, and it did little to explain why he kept the city under martial law for so long.

At the time, almost everyone rejected Jackson’s theory, which perhaps is unsurprising. The founding generation had been deeply suspicious of military power. That suspicion is apparent in the Declaration of Independence, which accuses King George III of rendering “the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” — and in the Constitution, which pointedly divides the war powers between Congress and the president, and requires that the commander in chief always be a civilian.

  1. Footnote8_76f6joq 8 Vladeck, “Emergency Power and the Militia Acts,” 156–58.
  2. In an 1815 case, the Louisiana Supreme Court described Jackson’s conduct in New Orleans as “trampling upon the Constitution and laws of our country.” footnote9_3fjc5hg 9 Dennison, “Martial Law,” 64 (citing Johnson v.
  3. Duncan et al.

Syndics, 1 Harr. Cond. Rep.157–70 ). Similarly, acting Secretary of War Alexander Dallas explained in a letter to Jackson that martial law had no legal existence in the United States outside of the Articles of War, the predecessor to the modern Uniform Code of Military Justice.

  1. Footnote10_y9fq9uj 10 Dennison, “Martial Law,” 64 (citing Dallas to Jackson, 12 April, 1 July 1815, in John Spencer Bassett and J.
  2. Franklin Jameson, eds., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, vol.2, Andrew Jackson Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1926–35, 203–4, 212–13).
  3. Overall, the consensus in 1815 was that martial law was simply another term for military law, and that military jurisdiction could extend no further than the armed forces themselves.

After Jackson relinquished control of New Orleans back to its civilian government, the local federal district judge held him in contempt of court, fining him $1,000. Jackson paid the fine, and for the next 27 years, nothing more came of the incident. However, in the early 1840s, the now-aging former president orchestrated a campaign in Congress to refund him the cost of the fine, plus interest.

  1. Footnote11_dna0prk 11 Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law, 6–12.
  2. The ensuing congressional refund debates marked the beginning of a shift in how Americans understood martial law.
  3. By pursuing a refund, Jackson hoped to set a precedent for, as one historian put it, “the legitimacy of violating the Constitution and civil liberties in times of national emergency.” footnote12_1tztyah 12 Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law, 5–6.

He got exactly what he wanted. Congress enacted the refund bill in February 1844, symbolically endorsing Jackson’s three-month-long imposition of martial law in New Orleans almost 30 years after it had ended. footnote13_b8g8ysz 13 Act of February 16, 1844, ch.2, 5 Stat.651.

By this time, the United States’ second experience with martial law was already underway in Rhode Island. The so-called “Dorr War” involved a dispute over the state’s first constitution, which severely restricted the right to vote. In 1842, after efforts to reform this system had been rebuffed for years, a large group of Rhode Islanders led by Thomas Dorr organized its own constitutional convention, adopted a new constitution, held elections, and declared itself the true government of Rhode Island.

When Dorr rallied his supporters to assert their authority by force, the Rhode Island General Assembly declared martial law and called out the state militia to suppress the rebellion. footnote14_nuawwlm 14 Luther, 48 U.S. at 35–37; and Dennison, “Martial Law,” 68.

  1. In 1849, the U.S.
  2. Supreme Court upheld the legality of Rhode Island’s martial law declaration in Luther v. Borden,
  3. Footnote15_1apogiu 15 Luther, 48 U.S. at 47.
  4. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roger Taney — of Dred Scott infamy — embraced Andrew Jackson’s idea that martial law allows civilians to be subjected to military jurisdiction in an emergency.

He described this power as an essential part of states’ right to defend themselves and suggested that it is inherent to all sovereign governments. footnote16_6ukrhm0 16 Luther, 48 U.S. at 45. By endorsing the constitutionality of martial law, the Supreme Court finished what Congress had started with the refund bill.

  1. The Luther decision makes clear that martial law exists as an emergency power that can be invoked in the United States, at least by state legislatures.
  2. Footnote17_f728xp4 17 Vladeck, “Field Theory,” 428–29; and Dennison, “Martial Law,” 76.
  3. But Luther also leaves many questions unanswered.
  4. It does not explain the legal basis for martial law, its scope, when it may be declared, or who is authorized to declare it.

Indeed, the Supreme Court has never directly held, in Luther or any subsequent case, that the federal government has the power to impose martial law. In one case, the Court suggested in “dicta”— a term for language in a judicial opinion that is not a necessary part of the holding and is not strictly legally binding — that the federal government may declare martial law.

footnote18_u7jqc9f 18 Milligan, 71 U.S. at 127. It assumed the same in another case, but only for the purpose of deciding a narrower legal question. footnote19_wfxt1io 19 Duncan, 327 U.S. at 313. Neither of those decisions conclusively affirms that a federal martial law power exists. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never directly held, in Luther or any subsequent case, that the federal government has the power to impose martial law.

Over time, however, consistency of practice has papered over gaps in the legal theory. The United States made extensive use of martial law during the Civil War, imposing it on border states like Missouri and Kentucky where U.S. forces battled with Confederate insurgents.

Footnote20_ljw12wo 20 Vladeck, “Emergency Power and the Militia Acts,” 175–83; and Banks and Dycus, Soldiers on the Home Front, 203–7. The Confederacy, too, relied on it heavily. footnote21_1a5ec65 21 Mark E. Neely Jr., Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999).

The practice did not end with the war: in the 90 years between the start of the Civil War and the end of World War II, martial law was declared at least 60 times. footnote22_466lgs7 22 Joseph Nunn, Guide to Declarations of Martial Law in the United States, Brennan Center for Justice, August 20, 2020.

What had been manifestly unconstitutional in the eyes of the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1815 had become a relatively ordinary part of American life by the end of the 19th century. States — and state governors in particular — have declared martial law far more often than the federal government. In the 1930s, Oklahoma Governor William “Alfalfa Bill” Murray declared martial law at least 6 and perhaps more than 30 times during his tenure.

footnote23_nhw4tpx 23 Debbie Jackson and Hilary Pittman, “Throwback Tulsa: Colorful ‘Alfalfa Bill’ Fell Short in Presidential Bid,” Tulsa World, July 14, 2016, https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/history/throwback-tulsa-colorful-alfalfa-bill-fell-short-in-presidential-bid/article_23b7bd2f-12ce-5415-a92f-937ecb40c0a6.html.

  1. City mayors and generals within states’ National Guard forces have also declared martial law on occasion.
  2. However, no state legislature has done so since the Rhode Island General Assembly in 1842.
  3. Not all of the military deployments under these declarations included what we today consider the defining feature of “martial law” — the displacement of civilian authority.

Many cases involved the use of the military to reinforce local police. In other cases, however, troops effectively replaced the police, and in some instances, they were used to impose the will of state or local officials rather than to enforce the law.

  • State officials have sometimes declared martial law in response to violent civil unrest or natural disasters, such as the Akron Riot of 1900 or the 1900 Galveston hurricane.
  • Footnote24_rjrskgq 24 Mary Plazo, “That Akron Riot,” Past Pursuits: A Newsletter of the Special Collections Division of the Akron-Summit County Public Library 9 (Summer 2010): 7, https://www.akronlibrary.org/images/Divisions/SpecCol/images/PastPursuits/pursuits92.pdf; and “Martial Law at an End: Conditions at Galveston Improving,” Los Angeles Herald, September 21, 1900, 2.

Far more often, however, they have used martial law to break labor strikes on behalf of business interests. For example, in September 1903, at the request of mine owners, Colorado Governor James Peabody declared martial law in Cripple Creek and Telluride to break a peaceful strike by the Western Federation of Miners.

The Colorado National Guard conducted mass arrests of striking workers and detained them in open-air bull pens. The Guard even ignored state court orders to release the prisoners, with one officer declaring, “To hell with the constitution.” footnote25_73hxnr8 25 Elizabeth Jameson, All That Glitters—Class, Conflict, and Community in Cripple Creek (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 207–8.

States’ use of martial law continued well into the 20th century, reaching a peak in the 1930s — a decade that also saw an increase in the flagrant abuse of this power by governors. In 1933, for example, Georgia Governor Eugene Talmadge declared martial law “in and around” the headquarters building of the state Highway Board as part of a scheme to force out some of the board’s commissioners, whom he had no legal power to remove.

This “coup de highway department” was ultimately successful. Remarkably, Talmadge’s successor, Governor Eurith Rivers, tried to do the same thing in 1939, but his attempt failed. footnote26_120ucrm 26 “National Affairs: Martial Law,” Time, July 3, 1933, http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745726,00.html; and Miller v.

Rivers, 31 F. Supp.540 (M.D. Ga.1940), rev’d as moot, 112 F.2d 439 (5th Cir.1940). Misuses of martial law were not confined to Georgia. In 1931, Texas Governor Ross Sterling engaged in a standoff with the federal courts over his government’s ability to enforce a regulation limiting oil production by private well operators.

At the climax of the conflict, Sterling imposed martial law on several counties — despite the total absence of violence or threats of violence — and deployed the Texas National Guard to enforce the regulation. He declared that the federal courts had no power to review his decision. The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that “here is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the Federal Constitution.” footnote27_ha95whs 27 Sterling, 287 U.S.

at 398, 403–4. It ordered Texas to stop using the military or any other means to enforce the regulation. The federal government has used martial law far less frequently than the states, imposing it only a few times since the end of Reconstruction. Generals have declared it more often than the president, such as in 1920, when U.S.

  1. Army Gen. Francis C.
  2. Marshall imposed martial law on Lexington, Kentucky, in order to suppress a lynch mob attempting to storm the courthouse.
  3. Footnote28_ia4drxg 28 Peter Brackney, The Murder of Geneva Hardman and Lexington’s Mob Riot of 1920 (Charleston, SC: History Press, 2020), 97–98.
  4. Most recently, the federal government declared martial law in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which initiated three years of absolute military rule in the islands.

footnote29_nth9bsw 29 Scheiber and Scheiber, Bayonets in Paradise, As abruptly as it took hold in the mid-19 th century, martial law disappeared from American life after World War II. The federal government has not declared martial law since it restored civilian rule to Hawaii in 1944.

  1. At the state level, martial law was last declared in 1963, when Maryland Governor J.
  2. Millard Tawes imposed it on the city of Cambridge for more than a year in response to clashes between racial justice advocates and segregationists.
  3. Footnote30_x1zdn84 30 Joseph R.
  4. Fitzgerald, The Struggle Is Eternal: Gloria Richardson and Black Liberation (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2018), 121–29; Rebecca Contreras, “Cambridge, Maryland, Activists Campaign for Desegregation, USA, 1962–1963,” Global Nonviolent Action Database, last modified July 27, 2011, accessed July 30, 2020, https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/cambridge-maryland-activists-campaign-desegregation-usa-1962–1963; Hedrick Smith, “Martial Law Is Imposed in Cambridge, Md., Riots,” New York Times, July 13, 1963, 1, 6, https://nyti.ms/30fTf3i; and “Tawes Withdraws Last Guard Troops in Cambridge, Md.,” New York Times, July 8, 1964, 18, https://nyti.ms/39PfcK0,

But even if the power to declare martial law has not been used in decades, it still exists in the case law and in the record books — and it remains poorly understood.

    footnote1_am0q6r0

    What happens if a civilian attacks a soldier?

    (a) In General.— Whoever knowingly assaults or batters a United States serviceman or an immediate family member of a United States serviceman, or who knowingly destroys or injures the property of such serviceman or immediate family member, on account of the military service of that serviceman or status of that individual as a United States serviceman, or who attempts or conspires to do so, shall— (1) in the case of a simple assault, or destruction or injury to property in which the damage or attempted damage to such property is not more than $500, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $500 nor more than $10,000 and imprisoned not more than 2 years; (2) in the case of destruction or injury to property in which the damage or attempted damage to such property is more than $500, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $1000 nor more than $100,000 and imprisoned not more than 5 years; and (3) in the case of a battery, or an assault resulting in bodily injury, be fined under this title in an amount not less than $2500 and imprisoned not less than 6 months nor more than 10 years.

    Does US have martial law?

    Martial law is basically what it sounds like: an armed force taking over for law enforcement. In the United States, martial law means the U.S. military or National Guard is tasked to take over, typically in a limited region or part of the country. There’s a lot of legislation governing martial law in the U.S., because when it’s used, things like “constitutional rights” tend to get tossed out the window.

    1. Most often, these are rights like gathering in groups, owning guns and protection from unreasonable searches and seizures.
    2. At least historically, the truth is that during martial law, the military officer in command can pretty much rule by decree and detain anyone for any reason.
    3. For better or worse, martial law has been declared 68 times in the U.S.

    and its territories, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan law and policy institute. Natural disasters, riots and even Mormons have all resulted in the civilian government temporarily ceding its power to the military. Here are a few notable examples from throughout U.S.

    Do civilians have to obey military?

    Failure to Obey a Military Order or Regulation Article 92 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice makes it a crime to disobey a lawful military order or regulation. You can be considered to be in violation of Article 92 if you intentionally violate or fail to follow an order.

    Is England under martial law?

    WHICH OTHER COUNTRIES HAVE IMPOSED IT? – Ukrainian soldiers man a checkpoint while the country was under martial law in November last year ( Image: Getty Images) Although the UK has never imposed martial law, there are many examples of it being used in history, including by Germany and Japan during the post World War II construction, and in the US following the American Civil War.

    However, not all experiences of martial law have been positive. In Poland, martial law was imposed in December 1981 and lifted a year and a half later, and introduced to prevent the opposition from gaining more power. Thousands of members of opposition organisations like the Solidarity Trade Union were jailed overnight without any charges, while many restrictions were imposed including a a curfew, postal censorship, telephone lines were disconnected, and citizens were prevented from travelling.

    In Mauritius, martial law was declared in during a period of civil unrest in 1968 as an emergency measure, but has never been repealed. It enables police to arrest without having to demonstrate reasonable suspicion that a crime has been carried out, after which the accused is required to report to the police on a regular basis, sometimes every day.

    • Martial law was also declared in Turkey in 2016 following a coup attempt, during which a curfew was imposed throughout the country and soldiers took to the streets.
    • Soldiers on the streets of Turkey during martial law in 2016 ( Image: Getty Images) At least 265 people died in clashes, including 104 coup supporters.

    And in November last year Ukraine’s parliament approved a 30-day presidential martial law decree in areas of the country seen as most vulnerable to attack from its giant neighbour, Russia. The British also declared martial law in Ireland in April 1916, to maintain order during the Easter Rising.

    Why did the British impose martial law?

    This act was enacted to prevent any form of a mobilised protest against the ruling authorities.

    When did British declare martial law?

    Martial law in Mandatory Palestine refers to the period when martial law was imposed by the British military on Jewish areas of Palestine during the Jewish insurgency in Mandatory Palestine, Statutory martial law was imposed on 2 March 1947 and enforced for 15 days in Jewish sectors of Mandatory Palestine,

    1. The crackdown was known as Operation Hippo in the greater Tel Aviv region and as Operation Elephant in the Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem,
    2. In response to attacks carried out by the Zionist militant organizations Irgun and Lehi against British vehicles, installations, and personnel, the British threatened to impose martial law.

    The Irgun ostensibly deliberately provoked the British into declaring martial law, carrying out attacks throughout Palestine on March 1, 1947. The deadliest incident occurred at the British Officers’ Club in Jerusalem which was bombed and subsequently became the site of a gunfight.

    Twenty people were killed. The British High Commissioner implemented martial law the following day in Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, the declaration affected civil services and governing. British soldiers arrested suspects throughout Palestine before martial law was lifted on 17 March.

    Throughout its duration, clashes between British personnel and Zionist militants continued.

    What is an example of martial law?

    Part I: What is Martial Law? – “Martial law” has no established definition. footnote1_am0q6r0 1 Duncan, 327 U.S. at 315 (“The term martial law carries no precise meaning.”). In the United States, however, the military’s domestic activities typically fall into one of three categories.

    First, the armed forces sometimes assist civilian authorities with “non–law enforcement” functions. For example, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the military deployed helicopters along the Gulf Coast to carry out search-and-rescue missions that local governments were unable to do themselves.

    Second, and far less frequently, the military assists civilian authorities with “law enforcement” activities. For example, state and federal troops were deployed to help police suppress the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Third, on some occasions, the military has taken the place of the civilian government.

    This is what happened in Hawaii during World War II. Usually, but not always, the term “martial law” refers to the third category. It describes a power that, in an emergency, allows the military to push aside civilian authorities and exercise jurisdiction over the population of a particular area. Laws are enforced by soldiers rather than local police.

    Policy decisions are made by military officers rather than elected officials. People accused of crimes are brought before military tribunals rather than ordinary civilian courts. In short, the military is in charge. footnote2_5dtbtho 2 William C. Banks and Stephen Dycus, Soldiers on the Home Front: The Domestic Role of the American Military (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016), 198; John Fabian Witt, “A Lost Theory of American Emergency Constitutionalism,” Law and History Review 36 (August 2018): 581–83; Stephen I.

    • Vladeck, “The Field Theory: Martial Law, the Suspension Power, and the Insurrection Act,” Temple Law Review 80 (Summer 2007): 391–439; Stephen I.
    • Vladeck, “Emergency Power and the Militia Acts,” Yale Law Journal 114 (Fall 2004): 149, 162; and George M.
    • Dennison, “Martial Law: The Development of a Theory of Emergency Powers, 1776–1861,” American Journal of Legal History 18 (January 1974): 61.

    This is a dramatic departure from normal practice in the United States. The U.S. military, when allowed to act domestically at all, is ordinarily limited to assisting civilian authorities. Martial law turns that relationship on its head. The displacement of civilian government distinguishes it from other emergency powers, such as the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus.

    Suspending the writ allows the government to detain and hold individuals without charge but does not imply any unusual role for the armed forces. While a declaration of martial law might be accompanied by a suspension of habeas corpus, they are distinct concepts. Martial law has not always meant what it does today.

    The term first appeared in England in the 1530s during the reign of King Henry VIII. footnote3_0oiy0w8 3 John M. Collins, Martial Law and English Laws, c.1500–c.1700 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016), 27. At that time and for centuries afterward, martial law generally referred to what is now called “military law.” footnote4_yhndtj9 4 Collins, Martial Law and English Laws, 3–7; and Dennison, “Martial Law,” 52.

    1. This is the law that applies when a soldier is court-martialed.
    2. In the modern United States, it is codified in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
    3. Footnote5_3jiqh6q 5 Uniform Code of Military Justice, 64 Stat.109, 10 U.S.C.
    4. §§ 801–946.U.S.
    5. Law did not recognize martial law as an emergency power until the mid-19th century.

    Before that time, the idea of allowing military rule in an emergency was considered outrageous — as evidenced by the national reaction to the first declaration of martial law in U.S. history. In December 1814, toward the end of the War of 1812, Gen. Andrew Jackson led a small army in the defense of New Orleans against a much larger invading British force.

    1. As part of his defensive preparations, Jackson imposed martial law on the city.
    2. He censored the press, enforced a curfew, and detained numerous civilians without charge.
    3. Moreover, he continued military rule for more than two months after his famous victory at the Battle of New Orleans had ended any real threat from the British.

    footnote6_0jhkz3a 6 Matthew Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law: Nationalism, Civil Liberties, and Partisanship (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 2006), 19–46. Jackson argued that his actions were justified because the government in New Orleans had ceased to function as a result of the impending British attack, leaving the military as the only body able to protect the city.

    1. In that situation, he claimed, the military had the authority to do anything that was “necessary” to preserve New Orleans.
    2. Footnote7_ynrti80 7 Dennison, “Martial Law,” 61–62; and Vladeck, “Field Theory,” 422.
    3. This was a novel argument, and it did little to explain why he kept the city under martial law for so long.

    At the time, almost everyone rejected Jackson’s theory, which perhaps is unsurprising. The founding generation had been deeply suspicious of military power. That suspicion is apparent in the Declaration of Independence, which accuses King George III of rendering “the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power” — and in the Constitution, which pointedly divides the war powers between Congress and the president, and requires that the commander in chief always be a civilian.

    footnote8_76f6joq 8 Vladeck, “Emergency Power and the Militia Acts,” 156–58. In an 1815 case, the Louisiana Supreme Court described Jackson’s conduct in New Orleans as “trampling upon the Constitution and laws of our country.” footnote9_3fjc5hg 9 Dennison, “Martial Law,” 64 (citing Johnson v. Duncan et al.

    Syndics, 1 Harr. Cond. Rep.157–70 ). Similarly, acting Secretary of War Alexander Dallas explained in a letter to Jackson that martial law had no legal existence in the United States outside of the Articles of War, the predecessor to the modern Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    1. Footnote10_y9fq9uj 10 Dennison, “Martial Law,” 64 (citing Dallas to Jackson, 12 April, 1 July 1815, in John Spencer Bassett and J.
    2. Franklin Jameson, eds., Correspondence of Andrew Jackson, vol.2, Andrew Jackson Papers, Library of Congress, Washington, DC, 1926–35, 203–4, 212–13).
    3. Overall, the consensus in 1815 was that martial law was simply another term for military law, and that military jurisdiction could extend no further than the armed forces themselves.

    After Jackson relinquished control of New Orleans back to its civilian government, the local federal district judge held him in contempt of court, fining him $1,000. Jackson paid the fine, and for the next 27 years, nothing more came of the incident. However, in the early 1840s, the now-aging former president orchestrated a campaign in Congress to refund him the cost of the fine, plus interest.

    footnote11_dna0prk 11 Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law, 6–12. The ensuing congressional refund debates marked the beginning of a shift in how Americans understood martial law. By pursuing a refund, Jackson hoped to set a precedent for, as one historian put it, “the legitimacy of violating the Constitution and civil liberties in times of national emergency.” footnote12_1tztyah 12 Warshauer, Andrew Jackson and the Politics of Martial Law, 5–6.

    He got exactly what he wanted. Congress enacted the refund bill in February 1844, symbolically endorsing Jackson’s three-month-long imposition of martial law in New Orleans almost 30 years after it had ended. footnote13_b8g8ysz 13 Act of February 16, 1844, ch.2, 5 Stat.651.

    By this time, the United States’ second experience with martial law was already underway in Rhode Island. The so-called “Dorr War” involved a dispute over the state’s first constitution, which severely restricted the right to vote. In 1842, after efforts to reform this system had been rebuffed for years, a large group of Rhode Islanders led by Thomas Dorr organized its own constitutional convention, adopted a new constitution, held elections, and declared itself the true government of Rhode Island.

    When Dorr rallied his supporters to assert their authority by force, the Rhode Island General Assembly declared martial law and called out the state militia to suppress the rebellion. footnote14_nuawwlm 14 Luther, 48 U.S. at 35–37; and Dennison, “Martial Law,” 68.

    • In 1849, the U.S.
    • Supreme Court upheld the legality of Rhode Island’s martial law declaration in Luther v. Borden,
    • Footnote15_1apogiu 15 Luther, 48 U.S. at 47.
    • Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Roger Taney — of Dred Scott infamy — embraced Andrew Jackson’s idea that martial law allows civilians to be subjected to military jurisdiction in an emergency.

    He described this power as an essential part of states’ right to defend themselves and suggested that it is inherent to all sovereign governments. footnote16_6ukrhm0 16 Luther, 48 U.S. at 45. By endorsing the constitutionality of martial law, the Supreme Court finished what Congress had started with the refund bill.

    • The Luther decision makes clear that martial law exists as an emergency power that can be invoked in the United States, at least by state legislatures.
    • Footnote17_f728xp4 17 Vladeck, “Field Theory,” 428–29; and Dennison, “Martial Law,” 76.
    • But Luther also leaves many questions unanswered.
    • It does not explain the legal basis for martial law, its scope, when it may be declared, or who is authorized to declare it.

    Indeed, the Supreme Court has never directly held, in Luther or any subsequent case, that the federal government has the power to impose martial law. In one case, the Court suggested in “dicta”— a term for language in a judicial opinion that is not a necessary part of the holding and is not strictly legally binding — that the federal government may declare martial law.

    footnote18_u7jqc9f 18 Milligan, 71 U.S. at 127. It assumed the same in another case, but only for the purpose of deciding a narrower legal question. footnote19_wfxt1io 19 Duncan, 327 U.S. at 313. Neither of those decisions conclusively affirms that a federal martial law power exists. Indeed, the Supreme Court has never directly held, in Luther or any subsequent case, that the federal government has the power to impose martial law.

    Over time, however, consistency of practice has papered over gaps in the legal theory. The United States made extensive use of martial law during the Civil War, imposing it on border states like Missouri and Kentucky where U.S. forces battled with Confederate insurgents.

    1. Footnote20_ljw12wo 20 Vladeck, “Emergency Power and the Militia Acts,” 175–83; and Banks and Dycus, Soldiers on the Home Front, 203–7.
    2. The Confederacy, too, relied on it heavily.
    3. Footnote21_1a5ec65 21 Mark E.
    4. Neely Jr., Southern Rights: Political Prisoners and the Myth of Confederate Constitutionalism (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999).

    The practice did not end with the war: in the 90 years between the start of the Civil War and the end of World War II, martial law was declared at least 60 times. footnote22_466lgs7 22 Joseph Nunn, Guide to Declarations of Martial Law in the United States, Brennan Center for Justice, August 20, 2020.

    • What had been manifestly unconstitutional in the eyes of the Louisiana Supreme Court in 1815 had become a relatively ordinary part of American life by the end of the 19th century.
    • States — and state governors in particular — have declared martial law far more often than the federal government.
    • In the 1930s, Oklahoma Governor William “Alfalfa Bill” Murray declared martial law at least 6 and perhaps more than 30 times during his tenure.

    footnote23_nhw4tpx 23 Debbie Jackson and Hilary Pittman, “Throwback Tulsa: Colorful ‘Alfalfa Bill’ Fell Short in Presidential Bid,” Tulsa World, July 14, 2016, https://www.tulsaworld.com/news/local/history/throwback-tulsa-colorful-alfalfa-bill-fell-short-in-presidential-bid/article_23b7bd2f-12ce-5415-a92f-937ecb40c0a6.html.

    • City mayors and generals within states’ National Guard forces have also declared martial law on occasion.
    • However, no state legislature has done so since the Rhode Island General Assembly in 1842.
    • Not all of the military deployments under these declarations included what we today consider the defining feature of “martial law” — the displacement of civilian authority.

    Many cases involved the use of the military to reinforce local police. In other cases, however, troops effectively replaced the police, and in some instances, they were used to impose the will of state or local officials rather than to enforce the law.

    State officials have sometimes declared martial law in response to violent civil unrest or natural disasters, such as the Akron Riot of 1900 or the 1900 Galveston hurricane. footnote24_rjrskgq 24 Mary Plazo, “That Akron Riot,” Past Pursuits: A Newsletter of the Special Collections Division of the Akron-Summit County Public Library 9 (Summer 2010): 7, https://www.akronlibrary.org/images/Divisions/SpecCol/images/PastPursuits/pursuits92.pdf; and “Martial Law at an End: Conditions at Galveston Improving,” Los Angeles Herald, September 21, 1900, 2.

    Far more often, however, they have used martial law to break labor strikes on behalf of business interests. For example, in September 1903, at the request of mine owners, Colorado Governor James Peabody declared martial law in Cripple Creek and Telluride to break a peaceful strike by the Western Federation of Miners.

    The Colorado National Guard conducted mass arrests of striking workers and detained them in open-air bull pens. The Guard even ignored state court orders to release the prisoners, with one officer declaring, “To hell with the constitution.” footnote25_73hxnr8 25 Elizabeth Jameson, All That Glitters—Class, Conflict, and Community in Cripple Creek (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1998), 207–8.

    States’ use of martial law continued well into the 20th century, reaching a peak in the 1930s — a decade that also saw an increase in the flagrant abuse of this power by governors. In 1933, for example, Georgia Governor Eugene Talmadge declared martial law “in and around” the headquarters building of the state Highway Board as part of a scheme to force out some of the board’s commissioners, whom he had no legal power to remove.

    1. This “coup de highway department” was ultimately successful.
    2. Remarkably, Talmadge’s successor, Governor Eurith Rivers, tried to do the same thing in 1939, but his attempt failed.
    3. Footnote26_120ucrm 26 “National Affairs: Martial Law,” Time, July 3, 1933, http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,745726,00.html; and Miller v.

    Rivers, 31 F. Supp.540 (M.D. Ga.1940), rev’d as moot, 112 F.2d 439 (5th Cir.1940). Misuses of martial law were not confined to Georgia. In 1931, Texas Governor Ross Sterling engaged in a standoff with the federal courts over his government’s ability to enforce a regulation limiting oil production by private well operators.

    1. At the climax of the conflict, Sterling imposed martial law on several counties — despite the total absence of violence or threats of violence — and deployed the Texas National Guard to enforce the regulation.
    2. He declared that the federal courts had no power to review his decision. The U.S.
    3. Supreme Court disagreed, explaining that “here is no such avenue of escape from the paramount authority of the Federal Constitution.” footnote27_ha95whs 27 Sterling, 287 U.S.

    at 398, 403–4. It ordered Texas to stop using the military or any other means to enforce the regulation. The federal government has used martial law far less frequently than the states, imposing it only a few times since the end of Reconstruction. Generals have declared it more often than the president, such as in 1920, when U.S.

    Army Gen. Francis C. Marshall imposed martial law on Lexington, Kentucky, in order to suppress a lynch mob attempting to storm the courthouse. footnote28_ia4drxg 28 Peter Brackney, The Murder of Geneva Hardman and Lexington’s Mob Riot of 1920 (Charleston, SC: History Press, 2020), 97–98. Most recently, the federal government declared martial law in Hawaii after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, which initiated three years of absolute military rule in the islands.

    footnote29_nth9bsw 29 Scheiber and Scheiber, Bayonets in Paradise, As abruptly as it took hold in the mid-19 th century, martial law disappeared from American life after World War II. The federal government has not declared martial law since it restored civilian rule to Hawaii in 1944.

    At the state level, martial law was last declared in 1963, when Maryland Governor J. Millard Tawes imposed it on the city of Cambridge for more than a year in response to clashes between racial justice advocates and segregationists. footnote30_x1zdn84 30 Joseph R. Fitzgerald, The Struggle Is Eternal: Gloria Richardson and Black Liberation (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2018), 121–29; Rebecca Contreras, “Cambridge, Maryland, Activists Campaign for Desegregation, USA, 1962–1963,” Global Nonviolent Action Database, last modified July 27, 2011, accessed July 30, 2020, https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/cambridge-maryland-activists-campaign-desegregation-usa-1962–1963; Hedrick Smith, “Martial Law Is Imposed in Cambridge, Md., Riots,” New York Times, July 13, 1963, 1, 6, https://nyti.ms/30fTf3i; and “Tawes Withdraws Last Guard Troops in Cambridge, Md.,” New York Times, July 8, 1964, 18, https://nyti.ms/39PfcK0,

    But even if the power to declare martial law has not been used in decades, it still exists in the case law and in the record books — and it remains poorly understood.