Replies

No such term (martial law) exists in the Louisiana Constitution. FYI, it is outright prohibited in Tennessee's Constitution. Nevertheless, the Governator is bestowed special "police" powers during a declared state of emergency. LA Governator did that this Monday. What this does it it de facto "militarizes" the judiciary and law enforcement. It becomes a completely different venue under the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice). With the powers that be under FEMA, Homeland Security, and the U.S. Code (Fedaral statute), these people could be labled "terrorists" and Gitmo'd. No Habeus Corpus, no representation, no charges, no Miranda, nada. They just dissappear, until the benevolent altruistic powers decide otherwise.

The President could decree (by executive fiat) that NO is a national security risk (commerce interuption into Mississippi waterway, oil terminals, etc.), and Federalize jurisidiction in the city.

military mobilization during times of national emergency - a.ka. martial law)

All the president has to do to get tough, should he decide to, is follow already existing Federal Statute (and there's nothing anybody could do about it):

TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 34 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 1631

§ 1631. Declaration of national emergency by Executive order; authority; publication in Federal Register; transmittal to Congress

When the President declares a national emergency, no powers or authorities made available by statute for use in the event of an emergency shall be exercised unless and until the President specifies the provisions of law under which he proposes that he, or other officers will act. Such specification may be made either in the declaration of a national emergency, or by one or more contemporaneous or subsequent Executive orders published in the Federal Register and transmitted to the Congress.

If worse comes to worse, LA leadership will without doubt wish they'd have done whatever possible to wrestle the bull by the horns, instead of deferring to Federal authority (but by then it'll be too late). If I was a perfectly Machiavellian President, I'd send units from every one of the several sovereign States north of the Mason-Dixon line to restore order in NO (and I'd do it with impugnity, and I'd make certain that it is clear who is in charge now). A Machiavellian leader does not desire, nor covet, his subjects devotion, admiration, nor love. He ruthlessly does what's good for the State. Got to break some eggs to make an omlette. I think that's colloquially called "tough-love", and used to be known as corporal punishment. While the connotations are somewhat misinformed, Machiavellian does not mean evil, it does denote a certain degree of callousness, however. Akin to a parent's hardened heart while hearing the cries of protest while spanking their child.

/rant-mode off off off (hmmm, doesn't seem to be staying off though). Does anybody remember "Spare the rod, spoil the child." Paul is quite clear in Romans 13 that a leader wields power through Divine grant. While despots enjoy the same right, a leader's responsibility before God is to wield power, might and authority for good. I believe that Bush will do it, and he won't wait to backed into a corner either, before he does so. Definitely not because he seemed to have raised two mighty fine daughters, comes from the respectible state of Texas, and is a born-again Christian to boot.

Prayers up for all those going through this mess. Oh, and it should go w/out saying: EAGLES UP! (and I mean that as Freeperly as Biblical, i.e. Isa 40:28-41).