martial law – Page 2

“Using military personnel for domestic law enforcement is dangerous and fraught, and any political leader who does it should be held strictly accountable for the consequences. Given the absence of any real need for militarized law enforcement in Chicago, it would be a grave abuse of power for the president to send any troops there on a law-enforcement pretext — as it was when he mobilized the National Guard for law enforcement in Washington, D.C. But for more than one reason, that mobilization in D.C. is easier to defend constitutionally than sending the Texas National Guard to Chicago would be. Justifiably or not, constitutional law treats all of D.C. as an exception to the McCulloch principle: The people of D.C. are, as a general matter, subject to a lawmaking authority — Congress — that they play no part in electing. (That’s why some D.C. license plates bear the protest slogan, “Taxation Without Representation.”) But regardless of whether that exception is justified in D.C., it has absolutely no application in Illinois. Like Nebraskans and Pennsylvanians and Kansans, Illinoisians are constitutionally entitled to be constituents of whatever body governs them.

Any military force is likely to behave with less restraint toward a population to which its leaders are not responsible than toward a population to which its leaders must answer democratically. If the Texas National Guard behaves poorly in Chicago, the locals have no electoral mechanism for holding Texas authorities to account. The governor of Texas never appears on any ballot in Illinois. He has nothing to fear, politically, from the people his National Guard will police. Surely a militarization at the hands of a non-responsible power is no less tyrannical, and no more constitutional, than a tax imposed by one.”

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/09/09/chicago-protest-trump-national-guard-dangerous-00552873

The South Korean president’s stunning martial law decree, explained

Posted on December 5, 2024 by Lone Candle

“South Korea is in the grip of a political crisis after President Yoon Suk Yeol declared martial law on Tuesday — a shocking move that sparked mass protests and drew sharp rebuke from the country’s parliament.
Though Yoon has said he will reverse his declaration, that’s unlikely to end South Korea’s political problems, which go beyond Tuesday’s emergency.

Yoon first made the declaration during a televised announcement on Tuesday night local time, claiming that the opposition party to his government was in the midst of an “insurgency” and “trying to overthrow the free democracy,” likely in reference to the political deadlock between himself and the parliament that has prevented him from enacting his agenda. Despite that ongoing gridlock, the move to declare martial law took Yoon’s political opponents, allies, the South Korean public — and the world — by surprise.

Shortly after Yoon’s declaration, South Korea’s parliament, known as the National Assembly, met to unanimously vote down the martial law decree.

“There is no reason to declare martial law. We cannot let the military rule this country,” opposition leader Lee Jae-myung said Tuesday. “President Yoon Suk Yeol has betrayed the people. President Yoon’s illegal declaration of emergency martial law is null and void.” Martial law typically involves the suspension of civilian government and rule by military decree in a major emergency, such as intense armed conflict.

Despite Yoon’s pledge to lift his declaration, the country is still in limbo; on Wednesday, opposition parties in the National Assembly submitted a motion for Yoon’s impeachment, and a vote could come as soon as Friday. What comes next is unclear.”

https://www.vox.com/world-politics/389580/south-korea-president-yoon-martial-law-north-korea