The quote from In re Milligan (the Civil War case that Lincoln ignored with impunity) is certainly a fine discussion of the circumstances when the writ can (okay, cannot be) be suspended.
However, if you look at my original post, what I said is that Art. I, Sec. 8 "acknowledges" that the power of martial law resides in the executive. It does not establish the power of martial law, nor, does it directly limit it, other than to the extent that it notes that decisions rendered under martial law can always be reviewed under the Great Writ.
The suggestion that Milligan stands for the proposition that martial law cannot be imposed at times of national emergency, however, is belied by history. In fact, martial law has been imposed even after Milligan was decided AND not only when the civil courts were unavailable. Not unsurprisingly, most of those situations were to quell either real or imagined popular uprisings, e.g., during Matewan and the coal wars.
I understand that the power is offensive to all modern notions of civil liberty, but the question was simply whether it exists.
Perhaps because the notion that civil liberties actually exist for anyone but the privileged is pretty quaint to someone who sees his brothers and sisters gunned down by the government without consequence, I am less repelled when it comes to the idea that they can be equally disregarded when preventing a despot from corrupting the electoral process. Perhaps history educates me that, when such men are allowed to hide behind principles designed to protect the oppressed, millions are crushed beneath their boots. Perhaps the destructiveness of the impending storm compels me to conclude that no port can be ignored.
In any event, I cannot capitulate to tyranny simply because the only available remedy offends my highest aspirations and ideals or has been abused in the past.
I am just not that noble.
= new reply since forum marked as read