[unkated]

I think in almost all cases, local law enforcement and administration at a town or county level would be left in the hands of civilians, with military oversight.

Why? Man power. If you detail as little as a squad of soldiers to become the police in every town in a given state, you just lost a few thousand men as a formed body of troops.

Massachussetts has ~340 towns; Tennessee has 346; if half of them are deserted, that's still 1700 troops spread out as policemen. And that's before we discuss state cop functions or military troops used for other administrative purposes.

I would suggest that Local Law and Administration would prevail simply because there are not enough soldiers to go around. And (surviving) 50 year-old locals are likely to do local politicking and admin better than a 25 year old sgt anyway.

Even hauling away everyone under 35 to be put in a uniform, there are still a decent population suitable for Local law Enforcement.

I would agree that local law enforcement would probably be authorized to use deadly force in more cases, and that what the military needs enforced (regardless of the US or any state constitution and set of laws). Most likely, there would be a set of transgressions prone to military justice, administered by traveling military tribunals.

Instead of supporting a county of 15 towns with 150 troops in squads, use a platoon (30) to deal with any sizable issues that crop up, and let the towns handle themselves. That's 120 formed troops available for non-local military issues (like Mexicans or Russians).

"Major? This is Sheriff Harkness, out Shelbyville way? I got a little problem me and Mike can't handle ourselves. There's this bunch of whack jobs that hit one of the farms out here. Dead family, looted their barn. I'm guessing like 8 to 10 of 'em, in two trucks. Can you send your boys to handle this?"

The flip side, of course, is that this is America. Strict martial law imposed from above would be prone to get the locals up in arms - literally.

Uncle Ted