straightUp Loc: California

Dude, you guys aren't under martial law. What you have is "Aid to the Civil Power" where the military provides auxiliary enforcement of civil law. That's not the same thing as martial law, where civil law is actually suspended.

So far there's no need for either here but I'm sure the National Guard is on standby should things get unruly and state governors make the call to assist them with enforcement of civil law.

It would take a LOT more than a viral outbreak with a 3% mortality rate to invoke *martial* law in the U.S. Sorry to disappoint the deplorables who I'm sure are fantasizing about it.

straightUp Loc: California

I agree 100% ...except for maybe your spelling ;)

American Vet

I suspect a democrat administration would be much more likely to impose martial law - nothing the leftist would like better than to control peoples activities, diets, and freedoms.....

Bosty Loc: South jersey

It’s their platform

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

True, what I get for not checking spellcheck changes.. Didn’t even see it until just now~~🤭

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Dude... No one said we were under martial law...

Although civil law has been suspended in some areas...

It hasn't taken much to induce panic in y'all....

straightUp Loc: California

I understand that's a common sentiment among the deplorables but the facts don't agree with you.

For instance...

1. The executive orders that stand at the ready to suspend the Constitution was signed by Nixon, a Republican.
2. Since 1970 every national effort to restrict personal freedom has been championed by Republicans... gay people can't get married, women can't get abortions, no one can smoke weed... the list goes on.

Don't confuse the shame you feel when you see liberals leading healthier lives with prohibition. No one is forcing you to eat right.

straightUp Loc: California

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

You left out polygamy, infanticide, and crystal meth...

Try to be more inclusive...

straightUp Loc: California

I might have misunderstood what you meant when you responded to Blade's comment about the disaster martial law would invoke with... "It's been pretty tame over here...


Has it?


Well... we Americans *do* tend to be over reactive. But most of the panic I see is limited to the imagination of deplorables who are trying to spread the notion that liberal media is intentionally trying to create panic to screw with Trump's election chances.

The reality is people are buying up stocks of toilet paper and that's about it.

American Vet

Yet we are to trust liberals who lead such clean lives? Liberals are the pure picture of hypocrisy: Here's a few - more to follow for you to choke on if you want them....

IRS (under obama) Apologizes For Aggressive Scrutiny Of Conservative Groups
https://www.npr.org/2017/10/27/560308997/irs-apologizes-for-aggressive-scrutiny-of-conservative-groups

Shutdown theater: Obama hit the American people hard during the great government shutdown crisis of 2013, doing everything he could to make American citizens feel maximum pain – from using “Barry-cades” to keep war veterans away from their memorials, to releasing illegal alien criminals from detention centers. It was an infuriating lesson for voters in how every dollar they get from government is a dollar that can be used against them, when they are impudent enough to demand spending restraint

The GSA scandal (obamas watch): The General Services Administration was caught wasting ridiculous amounts of taxpayer money on lavish parties and silly projects. Heroic efforts to resist accountability were made, leaving puzzled observers to ask what it took to get fired from government employment under Barack Obama.

The VA death-list scandal (under obama): The Department of Veterans Affairs has long been troubled, but the big scandals broke on Obama’s watch, most infamously the secret death lists veterans were put on while executives handed in phony status reports and signed themselves up for big bonuses. Obama was more interested in spinning the news and minimizing his political exposure than addressing problems.

The Pigford scandal: Named after a landmark lawsuit from the Bill Clinton era, the abuse of a program meant to compensate minority farmers for racial discrimination exploded under Obama. After years of left-wing attacks on Andrew Breitbart for daring to speak up about the scandal, the mainstream media – no less than the New York Times – finally admitted his critique of the program was accurate in 2013.

straightUp Loc: California

Yes, crystal meth is another one. Personally, I would never risk my health with that drug but as a liberal I consider that my personal choice. I don't need a law to tell everyone else they can't do it.

Polygamy is another one... One wife is enough for me but if other people want more then that's their choice as long as no one is being forced into it. Ironically, the regions where polygamy is most abundant, such as Utah, also happens to be well-known strongholds of the Republican party.

Infanticide is different because it's not what a liberal would call a personal choice or a personal freedom. It's an assault on another person, which makes it a crime and as such the prohibition is supported on both sides of the political divide.

lindajoy Loc: right here with you....

What did Nixon sign into law that suspends the Constitution?? Martial law?? Nothing can suspend the Constitution.. EOs can channel directives etc but please clarify what you are speaking of???

Federal government has important quarantine powers. Under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, the U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services has the power to take measures to contain communicable diseases from foreign countries into the United States and between states. The CDC acts on behalf of the Secretary in these matters.

Federal public health and welfare statutes also give the federal government authority to isolate and quarantine persons with certain diseases, based on an executive order issued by President George W. Bush in 2003. The federal government also has a seldom-used power to impose large-scale quarantines. For example, the federal government issued isolation and quarantine orders during the Spanish Influenza pandemic in 1918 and 1919.

But under the Constitution, individuals have rights in quarantine and isolation conditions. Under the 5th and 14th Amendment’s rights of Due Process and Equal Protection, public health regulations used to impose such conditions can’t be “arbitrary, oppressive and unreasonable.”

There are precedents where courts have ruled that states or local governments didn’t meet a burden of proof to justify a quarantine. For example, in 1900 courts ruled against the city of San Francisco when it tried to inoculate and then quarantine Chinese residents against the bubonic plague when the courts had doubts that plague conditions existed.

And there also precedents that authorities should provide confined people with an explanation about why they are confined and notify them they have a right to counsel and other constitutional provisions.

A current example of a federal quarantine order related to the COVID-19 virus on the CDC website outlines many of these principles for people arriving in the United States and “reasonably” suspected by the CDC of exposure to or infection with the coronavirus. Those quarantined have the right to a medical review and “to ask a federal court to review your federal quarantine, including any rights to habeas review.”

Also, the federal government does have an updated plan to cope with a national influenza pandemic. First developed in 2005 and last updated in 2017, the National Pandemic Influenza Plans deal with isolation and quarantine options if needed.

Of course, one final question is how can the government enforce isolation and quarantine conditions?

Perhaps this explains better~~

https://www.google.com/amp/s/constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/constitutional-powers-and-issues-during-a-quarantine-situation

straightUp Loc: California

So, is you're intention to inform me or make me choke? ;)


I'm quite familiar with this one... I did a lot of research and wrote a published article about it.
The reason why it appeared that the IRS was scrutinizing conservative groups and not liberal groups is that almost all the political groups applying for 501c status were in fact conservative. 501c is a tax-exemption status that is reserved for non-profit, non-political organizations. When the IRS noticed a flood of applications from conservative political groups, they started to scrutinize and the conservative groups started to scream that the IRS under Obama is being unfair. They need to understand that if only one team on the field commits fouls on every play they ARE going to get most of the penalties. Simple solution. Don't cheat.
As for the apology that was more an appeasement. Kind of like how a nurse might apologize for the pinch you felt when getting a booster shot.

I'm not going to address the rest of your nuggets from the heat lamps of right-wing media. I don't have the time and people generally don't like it when I post really long responses. The deplorables don't even read them so it turns out being a waste of my time. I don't know you well enough to make such assumptions but if there's a particular nugget you want to get into let me know. I prefer a more comprehensive discussion on a specific topic and too often I see people on the right trying to make up for a lack of depth with a sheer abundance of shallow references.

I hope you understand.

American Vet

Sure I understand. Liberals never have enough time to refute the obvious flaws in their little world. And invariably don't have a rational argument either.