> various takes i've read in newspapers about why people are fed up and desire change
They made less money. I'm looking forward to the next two years: I and everyone in my friend circle are going to make a lot of money. Even if we do nothing.
> if you have to appeal to SCOTUS to un-suspend it, it's safe to say that it was suspended
You're using a judiciary striking down an unconstitutional law as an example of martial law? Maybe start with the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law.
Here's a hint: if you can appeal to any court, you're not under martial law.
So we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'.
> we've gone from 'no rights were suspended' to 'rights were suspended but if you successfully got them un-suspended they were never really suspended before.'.
Who said no rights were suspended? You're arguing with yourself [1].
The wrong statement made at the head was that we had martial law in the West during Covid. We did not. Not even close. If civilian courts can overrule anything, you're not under martial law.
(Also, every state is constantly passing laws that are struck down, if this is your standard for martial law then everyone is always under martial law and the term is meaningless.)
> Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution.
I pointed out that constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared.
Then, after making the simple claim above you continually change the goal posts. First, martial law is suspension of the constitution. Then, it's suspension of the constitution and the inability to appeal to courts.
Pick one. If it's simply suspending the constitution... then we saw that. But you've changed the goal posts, not me.
> Martial law in America would mean suspending the Constitution. I pointed out that constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared.
Category error. Breakfast means eating food. That doesn't make every meal breakfast.
> constitutional rights were suspended. Thus, by your logic, martial law was declared.
Suspending the Constitution and having Constitutional rights suspended (or more accurately, violated) are very, very different. America under martial law would not have to respect courts, states, or any legislature. You'd have a commander in chief and his generals and everything else exists at their pleasure.
Note that one could suspend the Constitution without martial law. A Constitutional Convention could suspend the Constitution, for instance.
> you've changed the goal posts, not me.
Read the Wikipedia article. Or just look up the word "martial."
They made less money. I'm looking forward to the next two years: I and everyone in my friend circle are going to make a lot of money. Even if we do nothing.
> if you have to appeal to SCOTUS to un-suspend it, it's safe to say that it was suspended
You're using a judiciary striking down an unconstitutional law as an example of martial law? Maybe start with the Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law.
Here's a hint: if you can appeal to any court, you're not under martial law.