August 2009, a city in New Jersey a law was proposed to implement Martial Law by placing a curfew—for adults! This would make it illegal for someone to be outside their home from 12AM midnight to 7AM, if you’re caught outside your home? And simply agree to the charges, going willingly with the officers? $2,000 and 90 days in jail. And that’s not including possible charges of resisting arrest or something like that; and don’t forget the occasional officer who feels threatened by the ‘outlaw’, allowing them certain ‘defensive maneuvers’. And all this in an attempt to lower an already lowered and decreasing crime rate.
So now this begs the question, is all this right? Is Martial law unconstitutional? Lets start by defining Martial Law. Martial law is “The suspension of regular government and habeas corpus or the reliance of military law enforcement.”, and Google defines it as “Military government involving the suspension of ordinary law.” Suspension of government and law? Habeas Corpus being denied? Being run—or controlled—by the military? It sure does sound like something isn’t right. If you search ‘military ruling’, you will come across a term called ‘military dictatorship’.
A dictatorship? Isn’t that something the constitution supposed to be protecting us from? Maybe we’re simply missing something…lets look at what Martial Law entails, shall we? In this, the government will seize and control all resources, place a curfew, can search you and your property without probable cause or a warrant. This already goes against the constitution, so then why is this even being considered an option in the United States?
No comments:
Post a Comment