Flynn Retweets Name For Trump To Declare Martial Regulation To Maintain New Elections – Thelegaltorts

0
64
How The Flynn Case Became A Dangerous Game Of Legal Improvisation – JONATHAN TURLEY

Retired General Michael Flynn this week hailed an extreme call to President Donald Trump to declare martial law for holding new presidential elections. In a tweet, Flynn appeared to agree to a We the People Convention call to declare martial law. He added “Freedom never kneels outside of God. “As someone who has long criticized Flynn’s law enforcement as abusive, his association is deeply disappointing. While this doesn’t change the prosecution’s view, it does change Flynn’s view to support such a call.

Flynn was right to request a review of his charges and, in my opinion, his treatment by the court was irregular and inappropriate. The refusal to dismiss his case resulted in the president being pardoned.

Some of us have encouraged the courts to review the Trump campaign allegations, and I have strongly encouraged Democrats to support such a review in order to resolve the widespread view of this election as flawed. I believe the failure was a failure of Biden’s leadership. However, dozens of lawsuits have been examined and dismissed by the courts. This includes decisions made by Trump officials and Conservative judges.

I don’t usually rely on retweets, which often come on quickly and without much thought. However, the large headline of the original tweet prominently refers to martial law. It’s hard to miss. If he hasn’t read the heading and doesn’t endorse the call, he should issue a correction immediately.

The call for martial law is an invitation to virtual civil war. It is also a rejection of our justice system, which has continued to function as the Framers intended. Federal judges have dismissed these claims because of errors of law and insufficient evidence. The campaign appealed and lost many of these decisions.

In a full-page Washington Times advertisement from We the People Convention, Tom Zawistowski, chairman of the Ohio Tea Party, draws a comparison between Lincoln trying to save the union in 1863 and the need for Trump to declare martial law to make the conspiracy more democratic / Federal Socialist Official to Stop Coring the US Constitution. “

The reference to Lincoln is bitterly ironic. Lincoln has long been criticized for his unconstitutional action to unilaterally suspend the habeas corpus.

Article 1, Section 9 of the US Constitution states: “The privilege of writing habeas corpus is not suspended unless public security can request it in cases of rebellion or invasion.” This decision is in Article 1 with Congress, not the president. Furthermore, it is not a rebellion or an invasion. This is a controversial choice. If a president could unilaterally declare martial law over his own election, it would not be an invitation to tyranny, but tyranny itself.

As for Congress, there is no chance that such a statement would win the support of both Houses, including many Republicans.

The danger is not that such a Congress would approve such a move, but that such extreme calls will fuel growing tensions in this nation. It is terrifying and reckless for a former national security advisor to take such a call.

[Parts of this posting were updated]

Like this:

To like Loading…