Counter Arguments Against Martial Law

A commonly held belief amongst Americans is that martial law (often rephrased as a ‘State of emergency’), can’t and won’t be introduced in America. The facts are that there have already been instances of of martial law in American States, i.e., Hawaii during Pearl Harbour and nationally by Lincoln, but both in time of war.
The difference now is that NDAA law, enshrined within the NDS, provides the right of the Federal government to over ride both congress and State law.

The counter argument of opinion as opposed to fact, proposes that citizens would rise up against martial law. In the case of a declared ‘State of emergency’ in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, the facts show that the military were able to forcibly confiscate weapons with

no organised fightback and eye witness accounts say that there were mass shootings by the police and military. Further, several police officers from that period have received jail sentences on conviction. To say that next time everyone else would fight tback is therefore an unproven opinion.

The often cited opinion that it can never happen in America is based on two main points; a) (can’t), the Constitution b) (won’t), America’s exceptionalism.

a) The constitution
This begs the question, which takes precedence, the law or the constitution.

A counter argument would say that the law is based on the constitution.
My first question then is why (for what reason), have President’s Bush and Obama both over ruled the constitution and made into law by virtue of NDAA, the authority to declare martial law based on an inclusion of civil disorder (not war or terrorism), with the further authority to abolish habeas corpus, the right to due process under law.

b) Exceptionalism
The argument for this is that America has a type of governance that prevents tyranny, (martial law).
My argument is that the constitution is only worth the paper it’s written on and holds no guarantee other than what the people wish it to be, which is what the Founding Fathers warned against.
The people didn’t wish or vote for mass immigration, NSA spying or mass surveillance of its population. There was no vote to replace the 1878 Congressional Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

My second question. In a society supposedly unique in its limitations of State power, with checks and balances, why is power increasingly being transferred to a central government

authority.

An executive order signed by Obama in March 2012.
Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities.(a)The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads . . .’
There follows a designation of power to Federal authorities of health, energy, commerce. agriculture and transport, which is just about everything needed for a functioning society.

The abuse of executive power
Does this mean that martial law will be introduced to America? No, but it does mean that Obama, or a future President, may do so if s/he wishes, by over riding the constitution. Can ‘we the people’ via a representative congress prevent this?
‘’Article II, Section 2, clause 2, U.S. Constitution:
[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur . . .’’ (my bold).

President Obama. ‘’We don’t need congress to approve an Iran treaty.’’

My third question; if a President can over rule congress on treaties and give themselves the authority to make martial law possible, what is there left to prevent them from doing so.

In every democratic society, leaders are elected to govern, not ‘fundementally change.’ The voted for socially engineered change in American society has sent it plumetting both socially and economically. In every other society that has introduced martial law, it has followed the same economic, or social upheaval America now has.
A society of mass government dependency, huge economic problems and civil unrest.
Armoured vehicles on the streets, militarised SWAT teams, laws passed to enable martial law.

The ACLU, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, The Center for Constitutional Rights and a host of others, including even the Russian International radio broadcasting service have expressed alarm at NDAA content and the shift towards an increasingly militarised State.

(Guardian, UK centre-left newspaper)
‘’There is no doubt that 9/11 heavily influenced the changes to America’s happy-go-lucky life style. One must go back in the American history to the moment when the Big Brother attitude became part and parcel of the psyche of the American democratic state.’’

Huffington post
‘’ . . . we in the emerging American police state find ourselves reliving the same set of circumstances over and over again -- egregious surveillance, strip searches, police shootings of unarmed citizens, government spying, the criminalization of lawful activities, warmongering, etc. -- although with far fewer moments of comic hilarity.’’

The questions summarised. If there is no possibility of martial law, why have both Bush and Obama introduced it into law, for what reason is Obama by-passing congress with executive power and what is stopping any President in power now authorising martial law.