Milgov&civgov

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by rcaf_777

Ok great background info, but what I am for is what each government might have EI who would MILGOV have as

President
Vice President
Secretary of State
Secretary of the Treasury
Secretary of Defense
Attorney General of the United States
Secretary of the Interior
Secretary of Commerce
Secretary of Labor
Secretary of Health & Human Services
Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
Secretary of Transportation
Secretary of Energy
Secretary of Education
Secretary of Veteran Affairs

General Cummings was head and would appoint personnel, most likely senior people whose job could overlap the civilian sector.

[pmulcahy11b]

I know it's heresy compared to most players, but I think that CIVGOV has a more legitimate claim to being the legal US government, having most of the remaining civilian US government in its ranks and not unsizable military forces (though little heavy equipment).

MILGOV, on the other hand, controls a lot of the commo networks and heavy equipment, oil in the Gulf, and large armed forces. They have become the de facto government to many, and probably have their own version of COG (even more illegitimate than CIVGOV's COG).

MILGOV is, essentially trying to replace the legitimate US Government with a military junta. And for a long time after the Twilight War, they will succeed, but the people, as the country recovers and becomes more organized, will want a return to democracy. And this is where CIVGOV steps in.

[Draq]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I know it's heresy compared to most players, but I think that CIVGOV has a more legitimate claim to being the legal US government, having most of the remaining civilian US government in its ranks and not unsizable military forces (though little heavy equipment).

MILGOV, on the other hand, controls a lot of the commo networks and heavy equipment, oil in the Gulf, and large armed forces. They have become the de facto government to many, and probably have their own version of COG (even more illegitimate than CIVGOV's COG).

MILGOV is, essentially trying to replace the legitimate US Government with a military junta. And for a long time after the Twilight War, they will succeed, but the people, as the country recovers and becomes more organized, will want a return to democracy. And this is where CIVGOV steps in.

Exactly. Given the condition of the war, both at home and abroad, the military being in control is really what's needed.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I know it's heresy compared to most players, but I think that CIVGOV has a more legitimate claim to being the legal US government, having most of the remaining civilian US government in its ranks and not unsizable military forces (though little heavy equipment).

MILGOV, on the other hand, controls a lot of the commo networks and heavy equipment, oil in the Gulf, and large armed forces. They have become the de facto government to many, and probably have their own version of COG (even more illegitimate than CIVGOV's COG).

MILGOV is, essentially trying to replace the legitimate US Government with a military junta. And for a long time after the Twilight War, they will succeed, but the people, as the country recovers and becomes more organized, will want a return to democracy. And this is where CIVGOV steps in.

They tried to muddy the waters both had good and bad points. I think they wanted each group to choose in their game worlds and show more chaos and change.

[dragoon500ly]

In a previous post I detailed the Presidential Succession Act which lays out who is within the legitimate succession. The BYB specifics that the split between MilGov and CivGov occurred following the Thanksgiving Day Massacre and further specifies that MilGov claims to be the legitimate United States Government by virtual of a Presidential Decree of Martial Law.
But what is Martial Law and how does it apply to the United States? usconstitution.net defines martial law as:

“In strict dictionary terms, martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is "under martial law," we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The degree of control might vary - a nation may have a civilian legislature but have the courts administered by the military. Or the legislature and courts may operate under civilian control with a military ruler. In each case, martial law is in effect, even if it is not called "martial law."

“Martial law should not be confused with military justice. In the United States, for example, each branch of the military has its own judicial structures in place. Members of the service are under the control of military law, and in some cases civilians working for or with the military may be subject to military law. But this is the normal course of business in the military. Martial law is the exception to the rule. In the United States, the military courts were created by the Congress, and cases can be appealed out of the military system to the Supreme Court in many cases. In addition, a civilian court can petition the military for habeas corpus.”

“Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states, "The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." Habeas corpus is a concept of law, in which a person may not be held by the government without a valid reason for being held. A writ of habeas corpus can be issued by a court upon a government agency (such as a police force or the military). Such a writ compels the agency to produce the individual to the court, and to convince the court that the person is being reasonably held. The suspension of habeas corpus allows an agency to hold a person without a charge. Suspension of habeas corpus is often equated with martial law.”

“Because of this connection of the two concepts, it is often argued that only Congress can declare martial law, because Congress alone is granted the power to suspend the writ. The President, however, is commander-in-chief of the military, and it has been argued that the President can take it upon himself to declare martial law. In these times, Congress may decide not to act, effectively accepting martial law by failing to stop it; Congress may agree to the declaration, putting the official stamp of approval on the declaration; or it can reject the President's imposition of martial law, which could set up a power struggle between the Congress and the Executive that only the Judiciary would be able to resolve.”

“In the United States, there is precedent for martial law. Several times in the course of our history, martial law of varying degrees has been declared. The most obvious and often-cited example was when President Lincoln declared martial law during the Civil War. This instance provides us with most of the rules for martial law that we would use today, should the need arise.”

[dragoon500ly]

“On September 15, 1863, Lincoln imposed Congressionally-authorized martial law. The authorizing act allowed the President to suspend habeas corpus throughout the entire United States. Lincoln imposed the suspension on "prisoners of war, spies, or aiders and abettors of the enemy," as well as on other classes of people, such as draft dodgers. The President's proclamation was challenged in ex parte Milligan (71 US 2 [1866]). The Supreme Court ruled that Lincoln's imposition of martial law (by way of suspension of habeas corpus) was unconstitutional.”

“In arguments before the Court, the counsel for the United States spoke to the question of "what is martial law?" "Martial law," it was argued, "is the will of the commanding officer of an armed force, or of a geographical military department, expressed in time of war within the limits of his military jurisdiction, as necessity demands and prudence dictates, restrained or enlarged by the orders of his military chief, or supreme executive ruler." In other words, martial law is imposed by a local commander on the region he controls, on an as-needed basis. Further, it was argued, "The officer executing martial law is at the same time supreme legislator, supreme judge, and supreme executive. As necessity makes his will the law, he only can define and declare it; and whether or not it is infringed, and of the extent of the infraction, he alone can judge; and his sole order punishes or acquits the alleged offender."

“In this case, Lambden Milligan, for whom the case is named, was arrested in Indiana as a Confederate sympathizer. Indiana, like the rest of the United States, was part of a military district set up to help conduct the war. Milligan was tried by military commission and sentenced to die by hanging. After his conviction, Milligan petitioned the Circuit Court for habeas corpus, arguing that his arrest, trial, and conviction were all unconstitutional. What the Supreme Court had to decide, it said, was "Had [the military commission] the legal power and authority to try and punish [Milligan]?"

“Resoundingly, the Court said no. The Court stated what is almost painfully obvious: "Martial law ... destroys every guarantee of the Constitution." The Court reminded the reader that such actions were taken by the King of Great Britain, which caused, in part, the Revolution. "Civil liberty and this kind of martial law cannot endure together; the antagonism is irreconcilable; and, in the conflict, one or the other must perish."

“Did this mean that martial law could never be implemented? No, the Court said. The President can declare martial law when circumstances warrant it: When the civil authority cannot operate, then martial law is not only constitutional, but would be necessary: "If, in foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are actually closed, and it is impossible to administer criminal justice according to law, then, on the theatre of active military operations, where war really prevails, there is a necessity to furnish a substitute for the civil authority, thus overthrown, to preserve the safety of the army and society; and as no power is left but the military, it is allowed to govern by martial rule until the laws can have their free course. As necessity creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for, if this government is continued after the courts are reinstated, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial rule can never exist where the courts are open, and in the proper and unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction. It is also confined to the locality of actual war."

[dragoon500ly]

Hopefully you are as confused by all this as I was when I first started researching this...I even broke down and asked a few lawyers that I play the occasional round of golf with.

After buying these <ahem> gentlemen lunch and way too many drinks...

There are two basic questions that have to be answered:

1. Does the President have the authority to declare Martial Law?

The answer is yes. With the havoc caused by the Thanksgiving Day Massacre, the President did have grounds to call upon Congress to confirm a state of martial law.

Did this happen? Both the v.1 and the BYB fail to mention this confirmation. But the approval of the Senate is critical for such a declaration to be legal. Only Congress can declare a suspension of habeas corpus.

2. Did the President have the authority to name a military officer as a successor to the Office of the President?

The answer is no. The Presidential Succession Act is very clear upon the necessary chain to determine if someone can be named, and active military officers do not fall within the PCA. For General Cummings to be named as President, he would have to resign his commission, be appointed as Secretary of Defense or even be named Vice President before he could fulfill the provisions of the PCA.

For General Cummings to remain an active duty officer AND take the office of the President, the PCA would deny him the legal authority necessary.

In real life, MilGov would be the illegal government, at least as described in the canon material.

[The Dark]

Continuity of Government is a major theme of the book Jason recommended a while back, Raven Rock. There were plenty of technically illegal orders placing various contingency plans in place putting (effectively) a military junta in a secret chain of succession. The problem that was eventually realized was that if the order is secret, how can anyone outside the group of people read in on it know whether it's a legitimate order or a coup d'etat?

[unkated]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I know it's heresy compared to most players, but I think that CIVGOV has a more legitimate claim to being the legal US government, having most of the remaining civilian US government in its ranks and not unsizable military forces (though little heavy equipment).

MILGOV, on the other hand, controls a lot of the commo networks and heavy equipment, oil in the Gulf, and large armed forces. They have become the de facto government to many, and probably have their own version of COG (even more illegitimate than CIVGOV's COG).

MILGOV is, essentially trying to replace the legitimate US Government with a military junta. And for a long time after the Twilight War, they will succeed, but the people, as the country recovers and becomes more organized, will want a return to democracy. And this is where CIVGOV steps in.

I would agree, and I believe that MilGov would have handed control to a legitimate president, except (IIRC) that as described, the process CIVGOV uses to declare a new President has some major problems with legitimacy itself - that the representation by members of the rump Congress was questionable, and so their appointment of leadership was questionable. Meanwhile, MilGov had an active war to prosecute.

Finally, the Electoral College gets a chance to fulfill its actual purpose, and no one calls them!

The part that gets messy is when individuals have to choose between obeying a military junta or an illegitimately appointed civilian leadership, like...

• the head of the MidWest office of the FBI gets phone calls from both a General and a new Attorney General and has to decide who to listen to, or
  
• a Base Commander gets orders from his superior to institute martial law to take control of a neighboring city without an order or permission from a civil authority to do so (breaking posse comitatus, the law that says that the US military cannot be used within the US for law enforcement unless ordered to do so by civil authority), or
  
• a Colonel orders a power company to limit electricity distribution to a city population so it can be concentrated on military production factories.

Of course, this is all besides the question of who is making personal plays for power on the grand national scale.

Uncle Ted

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by unkated

I would agree, and I believe that MilGov would have handed control to a legitimate president, except (IIRC) that as described, the process CIVGOV uses to declare a new President has some major problems with legitimacy itself - that the representation by members of the rump Congress was questionable, and so their appointment of leadership was questionable. Meanwhile, MilGov had an active war to prosecute.

Finally, the Electoral College gets a chance to fulfill its actual purpose, and no one calls them!

The part that gets messy is when individuals have to choose between obeying a military junta or an illegitimately appointed civilian leadership, like...

• the head of the MidWest office of the FBI gets phone calls from both a General and a new Attorney General and has to decide who to listen to, or
  
• a Base Commander gets orders from his superior to institute martial law to take control of a neighboring city without an order or permission from a civil authority to do so (breaking posse comitatus, the law that says that the US military cannot be used within the US for law enforcement unless ordered to do so by civil authority), or
  
• a Colonel orders a power company to limit electricity distribution to a city population so it can be concentrated on military production factories.

Of course, this is all besides the question of who is making personal plays for power on the grand national scale.

Uncle Ted

Just a minor point, posse comitatus only applies to the US Army (and USAF as when the law was passed they were part of the Army), but not the US Navy, guard or reserves (unless Army guard/ reserves are called to federal duty).

[The Dark]

Originally Posted by CDAT

Just a minor point, posse comitatus only applies to the US Army (and USAF as when the law was passed they were part of the Army), but not the US Navy, guard or reserves (unless Army guard/ reserves are called to federal duty).

While strictly true in that the law does not refer to branches other than the Army and Air Force, the Navy and Marine Corps were made subject to it by DoD Directive 5525.5. There is an exception for National Guard units if they're acting pursuant to the presidential power to subdue domestic violence (per 10 USC Sections 331-335, aka the Insurrection Act). Even if called for state service, NG regulations prohibit their use for normal law enforcement functions such as arrests, searching suspects, or handling evidence. They can perform surveillance, intelligence, and support roles, but are not supposed to be hands-on at the scene.

The Coast Guard is exempt unless they are placed under the control of the DoD in time of war, as they were Treasury and are now Homeland Security, and are not usually part of the DoD (and thus not included in DoD Directives). Exceptions also exist for cases involving nuclear material (18 USC 831) and chemical or biological weapons (10 USC 382), where DoD experts may be brought in to work with the DoJ for national security purposes.

[Toxoplasmaman]

Originally Posted by unkated

I would agree, and I believe that MilGov would have handed control to a legitimate president, except (IIRC) that as described, the process CIVGOV uses to declare a new President has some major problems with legitimacy itself - that the representation by members of the rump Congress was questionable, and so their appointment of leadership was questionable. Meanwhile, MilGov had an active war to prosecute.

Finally, the Electoral College gets a chance to fulfill its actual purpose, and no one calls them!

The part that gets messy is when individuals have to choose between obeying a military junta or an illegitimately appointed civilian leadership, like...

• the head of the MidWest office of the FBI gets phone calls from both a General and a new Attorney General and has to decide who to listen to, or
  
• a Base Commander gets orders from his superior to institute martial law to take control of a neighboring city without an order or permission from a civil authority to do so (breaking posse comitatus, the law that says that the US military cannot be used within the US for law enforcement unless ordered to do so by civil authority), or
  
• a Colonel orders a power company to limit electricity distribution to a city population so it can be concentrated on military production factories.

Of course, this is all besides the question of who is making personal plays for power on the grand national scale.

Uncle Ted

Milgov does not have the option of deciding if the current Cilgov deserves legitmancy. Milgov has no standing in constitutional law. Presidential elections have always been contested.

Since I'm new, I will just point out the United States presidential election of 1876. Nothing recent!😀

[Toxoplasmaman]

I, _____, having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers

Oath of Commissioned Officers is a bit different then enlisted. No mention of obeying President or superior officers.

Hmmm.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by unkated

• the head of the MidWest office of the FBI gets phone calls from both a General and a new Attorney General and has to decide who to listen to, or
  
• a Base Commander gets orders from his superior to institute martial law to take control of a neighboring city without an order or permission from a civil authority to do so (breaking posse comitatus, the law that says that the US military cannot be used within the US for law enforcement unless ordered to do so by civil authority), or
  
• a Colonel orders a power company to limit electricity distribution to a city population so it can be concentrated on military production factories.

Uncle Ted

Here what I see happening the head of the Mid West FBI office would mostly likely follow Attorney General as that what he has always done. However the
Special Agent in Charge (SAC) might question why is Attorney General giving orders and not the senior FBI staff.

Now the next on would be the opposite military officers would mostly likely follow the orders of a Superior Officer. the Base Commander might have reservations especially if deadly force was call for. But given that nukes had used and country I wouldn't see him acting otherwise.

Now the last case is the easiest the power company might listen to the colonel or not. It depends dose he make this request in person with armed troops or dose phone it in.