Martial Law: Can Presidential Elections Be Suspended?

In the United States, the president does not have the authority to declare martial law. Even if Congress were to provide authorization, the Supreme Court has not conclusively decided that the federal government is constitutionally empowered to declare martial law. The Constitution would still apply, and the government cannot suspend or violate constitutional rights by martial law or any other means. Therefore, a presidential election cannot be suspended under martial law.

The US President cannot declare martial law

While the US President does have the power to call on the military to help local governments after a natural disaster or in the case of domestic violence, the President cannot declare martial law.

The US Constitution does not explicitly grant the President the power to declare martial law. The Supreme Court has never specifically ruled that the President or federal government can declare martial law. The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted by Congress in 1878, prevents the US military from participating in civilian law enforcement activities. This Act strengthens the separation of powers between Congress and the President.

Some scholars believe the President has the executive power to declare martial law, while others believe the President needs congressional authorization to impose martial law in a civilian area. However, Congress might not be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, as the Supreme Court has not conclusively decided that the federal government is constitutionally empowered to declare martial law.

The Constitution would still apply even if Congress were to authorize martial law, and the Supreme Court were to uphold its power to do so. The Constitution does not allow the government to suspend or violate constitutional rights by martial law or any other means.

In conclusion, the US President does not have the authority to declare martial law.

Congress might be able to authorise a presidential declaration of martial law

The US Constitution does not give the president "conclusive and preclusive" authority over the domestic use of the military. Instead, it explicitly vests power in the legislative branch, meaning the president cannot act against Congress's wishes in this area. Therefore, a unilateral declaration of martial law by the president would not survive a legal challenge.

Congress might be able to authorize a presidential declaration of martial law, but this has not been conclusively decided. The Supreme Court has never explicitly ruled that the president or federal government can declare martial law. However, the Court has implied that the federal government can declare it, and in the 19th century, it suggested that a federal martial law power was "implied in sovereignty" or justified by "necessity."

If Congress were to authorize martial law, the Constitution would still apply, and the Supreme Court would have the power to review it. The Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, also prevents the US military from participating in civilian law enforcement without congressional approval. Congress has also given the president the authority to use troops domestically to assist in civilian law enforcement activities, which could be a precursor to a declaration of martial law.

While the president's ability to unilaterally declare martial law is questionable, there have been instances where Congress has authorized the use of martial law. For example, in 1863, President Lincoln imposed Congressionally authorized martial law on Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri. More recently, in 2006, Congress passed a law giving the president the power to declare martial law and take command of National Guard units without the consent of state governors.

State officials can declare martial law

While the US President and Congress have the power to impose martial law, as they can be in charge of the militia, state officials can also declare martial law. In nearly every state, the governor has the power to impose martial law within the borders of the state. State martial law power is more clearly established than that of the federal government, but there are still significant limits. States may only declare martial law when it is authorized by state law, and the Constitution and valid federal laws will still constrain the state's conduct under the declaration. The actions of state officials under the declaration must abide by the US Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

There are several examples of state officials declaring martial law in the US. For instance, in 1933, Georgia Governor Eugene Talmadge declared martial law 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. In another instance, during the West Virginia Coal Wars (1920-1921), martial law was declared in the state of West Virginia at the behest of Governor Cornwell, who requested federal troops to deal with striking miners. The army officer in charge acted under the Suspension Clause of Article I of the US Constitution, jailing only union miners.

State officials have also declared martial law in response to chaos associated with protests and rioting. For example, during the Civil Rights Movement, martial law was declared in response to the Cambridge riot of 1963. In addition, after the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 and the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, local leaders declared martial law to protect themselves from mob violence. In Utah during the Utah War, Brigham Young ordered the people of Salt Lake City to burn their homes and retreat to Provo, declaring that "no person shall be allowed to pass or repass into, through or from this territory without a permit from the proper officer."

While the power to declare martial law rests with state officials, it is essential to note that this power must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution. The exact scope and limits of martial law remain unclear due to sparse and inconsistent legal precedent, highlighting the need for new laws that better define these parameters.

Martial law must be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution

Martial law is a complex and sensitive issue in the United States, with a history of abuse and confusion surrounding its implementation. While the president cannot declare martial law, it is important to understand how it can be exercised within the bounds of the Constitution.

Firstly, it is crucial to recognize that the president, Congress, and the Supreme Court are all bound by the Constitution at all times. The Constitution does not grant any of these entities the power to suspend or violate constitutional rights, even under martial law. This means that even if Congress were to authorize martial law and the Supreme Court upheld it, the Constitution would still apply, and any actions taken must abide by it.

State officials, including governors, do have the power to declare martial law under specific circumstances, such as in the case of Alabama Governor Gordon Persons, who placed Russell County under martial law due to organized crime gangs. However, their actions under such a declaration are subject to review in federal court and must abide by the Constitution. For example, during the West Virginia Coal Wars (1920-1921), martial law was declared, and federal troops were dispatched to deal with striking miners. The army officer in charge acted selectively, jailing only union miners, which led to criticism and legal repercussions.

The right to habeas corpus, or the right to a hearing and trial on lawful imprisonment, is also closely tied to martial law. According to Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution, "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." This means that even under martial law, the right to habeas corpus cannot be suspended without a justifiable reason.

In conclusion, martial law must always be exercised within the constraints of the Constitution, and any actions taken by state officials or the military are subject to judicial review. The Constitution does not grant the power to suspend constitutional rights, and any attempts to do so, even in times of national emergency, would be a violation of the fundamental principles of the United States.

The President can deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement

The Posse Comitatus Act, enacted in 1878, generally forbids the US military, including federal armed forces and National Guard troops, from taking part in civilian law enforcement. This law reflects a core American value that views military interference in civilian government as a threat to liberty and democracy.

However, there are exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act that allow the President to deploy troops to assist civilian law enforcement. One exception is the Insurrection Act, which permits the President to deploy the military to assist civilian authorities in enforcing federal laws and suppressing rebellions or insurrections. The Insurrection Act has been invoked numerous times throughout history, including by Presidents George Washington, John Adams, Abraham Lincoln, and Ulysses Grant.

Another exception is when a state's legislature or governor requests federal aid to suppress an insurrection or rebellion in that state. In this case, the President can deploy troops with or without the state's consent, depending on the specific circumstances.

In addition, the Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act, enacted in 1981, clarifies permissible military assistance to domestic law enforcement agencies, emphasizing supportive and technical assistance while generally prohibiting direct participation of US military personnel in law enforcement activities.

Despite these exceptions, the President still lacks the authority to declare martial law under current law. The power to declare martial law rests with Congress or state officials, and any actions taken under such a declaration must abide by the US Constitution and are subject to review in federal court.

Frequently asked questions