Suspension of PA Constitution?

[sluggie24]

I was having a discussion on another forum with people about the new Martial Law Act that was passed last year and a question came up That no one had an answer to. If the act were used thereby suspending the US Constitution would that also have the power to suspend all 50 state Constitutions as well? Could anyone with the legal knowledge answer this one?

Also if the the US Constitution was suspended would that just suspend the citizen's rights or the whole Constitution thereby removing the federal governments power to be a legal government?

[Rule10b5]

The argument that suspension of certain rights under the US Constitution also suspends the equivalent rights under state constitution is a valid argument. Not because it works through some tortured legal logic, but simply because we live in a world where the public, the courts, and the legislature have departed from the proposition that the states form the predicate for the federal government -- allowing the feds to displace states rights as a whole.

And, more importantly, if it ever gets to the point where portions of the US Constitution were suspended, the state governments would be tripping over themselves to jump into line to show their support for the president "In this time of great crisis and danger."

[knight0334]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

The argument that suspension of certain rights under the US Constitution also suspends the equivalent rights under state constitution is a valid argument. Not because it works through some tortured legal logic, but simply because we live in a world where the public, the courts, and the legislature have departed from the proposition that the states form the predicate for the federal government -- allowing the feds to displace states rights as a whole.

And, more importantly, if it ever gets to the point where portions of the US Constitution were suspended, the state governments would be tripping over themselves to jump into line to show their support for the president "In this time of great crisis and danger."

Come on, say it... due to the War of Northern Aggression. lol


I cant see how the Constitution itself empowers the government to suspend the any portion of the Constitution. It'd be like a tree reaching down and cutting it's trunk off - once it's cut, it is no longer a tree.

Any suspension of liberties, or actions beyond Constitutional authority, amounts to a change of government without consent of the people.

[mikepro8]

scary stuff, isnt it?

[sjl127]

Originally Posted by Rule10b5

where the public, the courts, and the legislature have departed from the proposition that the states form the predicate for the federal government -- allowing the feds to displace states rights as a whole.

I seriously doubt this. Over time, the states will realize this, and not let it happen and take their inherent powers back.

[Pa. Patriot]

Originally Posted by knight0334

Come on, say it... due to the War of Northern Aggression. lol


I cant see how the Constitution itself empowers the government to suspend the any portion of the Constitution. It'd be like a tree reaching down and cutting it's trunk off - once it's cut, it is no longer a tree.

Any suspension of liberties, or actions beyond Constitutional authority, amounts to a change of government without consent of the people.

Exactly.
There is no such thing as a legal suspension of the constitution. If that happens the .gov has forceably taken over and will need to be overthrown just like any other invading enemy.

[SigForLife]

I have to disagree that a declaration of martial law would suspend the state constitutional rights. There are hundreds of cases where the Fed have limited rights under the Fed Constitution, only for state courts to declare that under the state constitution (even when verbatim to the Fed Constitution), the act was unconstitutional. The suspension of the Fed. Constitution would not suspend state constitutions because they are distinct and each state is autonomous.

[netw0rkpenguin]

Originally Posted by SigForLife

I have to disagree that a declaration of martial law would suspend the state constitutional rights. There are hundreds of cases where the Fed have limited rights under the Fed Constitution, only for state courts to declare that under the state constitution (even when verbatim to the Fed Constitution), the act was unconstitutional. The suspension of the Fed. Constitution would not suspend state constitutions because they are distinct and each state is autonomous.

The problem is lincoln didn't agree and he won.

[sgser]

Maybe it's been suspended already, at least as far as the right to keep and bear arms is concerned.

Article I makes it clear that our rights are inherent, unalterable and indefeasible, that we have the right to protect ourselves and our property and that our right to bear arms shall not be questioned. Article I goes on to say say that those rights cannot be tampered with by our elected and appointed state officials. those rights are excepted out of the general powers of government and shall forever remain inviolate.

[SigForLife]

Lincoln only "won" because the the Judiciary lacked any force. Now, one can contend that they don't have "force" today, but for the US Marshalls and Sheriffs, however, the politics are much different. I can't see any state gov't ordering a suspension of the state constitution when the state's Supreme Court declares it unconstitutional. If it did occur, the people would rise up, in unity with the Court.