It's much more likely that it is martial law and that the President spells it out not so much for the soldiers as he does for the audience. The same way a villain tells the good guy what he's planning to do. You don't really think that bad people always tells the good guys what they are about to do before they shoot them do you? Yet it's something we very often see in fiction. It's a way to make sure that the audience is informed of what's going on.
Duties of the Federation President
- Thread starter alpha_leonis
- Start date
It's much more likely that it is martial law and that the President spells it out not so much for the soldiers as he does for the audience. The same way a villain tells the good guy what he's planning to do. You don't really think that bad people always tells the good guys what they are about to do before they shoot them do you? Yet it's something we very often see in fiction. It's a way to make sure that the audience is informed of what's going on.
Not all functions, only the functions relative to law and order. That is if you break the law, you'll be judged according to military law instead of civilian law. It can be temporary when there is a state of emergency, for instance if a group of people is constantly causing trouble as happened in France a few years ago. They took drastic measures that only lasted until the leaders of the people that were doing the damaging were all arrested, after that things slowly returned to normal.
Think of it as the fever that your body develops when it is attacked by infectious microorganisms.
Not exactly, assuming their system is like ours.
Martial law would be the control by military authorities over the civilian population inside of a (usually limited) area or territory.
Military personnel would then have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Civil liberties may be suspended, such as the freedom of association, the freedom of movement, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures .
Under a state of emergency, again civil rights could/would be suspended, however the military would not be place in authority. Troops in the street would be under direct military command, but the civilian government would remain in overall control.
You forget that following the installation of the state of emergency, military personnel were beamed on the streets everywhere. That's exactly what happens when Martial law is decreed.Not exactly, assuming their system is like ours.
Martial law would be the control by military authorities over the civilian population inside of a (usually limited) area or territory.
Military personnel would then have the authority to make and enforce civil and criminal laws. Civil liberties may be suspended, such as the freedom of association, the freedom of movement, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures .
Under a state of emergency, again civil rights could/would be suspended, however the military would not be place in authority. Troops in the street would be under direct military command, but the civilian government would remain in overall control.
This is what wikipedia says about it
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governer or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It is usually imposed temporarily when the government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services).
I believe the President was still in charge so under that definition it is not Martial Law. A state of emergency and Martial Law can share certain similarities but the key difference is that under Martial Law the military is calling the shots not a civillian governemnt.
Martial law is the imposition of the highest-ranking military officer as the military governer or as the head of the government, thus removing all power from the previous executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. It is usually imposed temporarily when the government or civilian authorities fail to function effectively (e.g., maintain order and security, or provide essential services).
I believe the President was still in charge so under that definition it is not Martial Law. A state of emergency and Martial Law can share certain similarities but the key difference is that under Martial Law the military is calling the shots not a civillian governemnt.
When was the president ever referred to by either of these terms?
The president in Homefront declared a state of emergency, not martial law. And this was on the planet where the federation governing body was located, there no indication that he could do the same on any other Member planet.
This never has made sense, you'd think a actual president would have better things to do. Kirk's courts martial should have been conducted entirely by Starfleet.
I agree with you on your third statement. But, as far as the other comments go, this is from Memory Alpha. You can't argue with Memory Alpha.
The President may have been in charge, but he was the President of the Federation, not of Earth.
I do not know what would be the real life comparison (US President declaring one in Maryland, German Chancellor in Berlin).
Are there examples when Martial law has been declared, but the civilian institution were fully operational and sufficient, as in good working order?
The US President lacks the legal power to declare martial law, that power rests with Congress.
Frequently I do, remember that Memory Alpha is just a fan site, whose members write the articles, the articles are subject to personal interpretation of canon. Some TrekBBS members have written articles over there. Errors are numerous.
Under a state of emergency too, in fact you don't require either in order to "place troops in the streets." American governors can deploy the state's guard with just a phone call.
Frequently I do, remember that Memory Alpha is just a fan site, whose members write the articles, the articles are subject to personal interpretation of canon. Some TrekBBS members have written articles over there. Errors are numerous.
I understand. It is the Star Trek "wiki."
Maybe we need a Star Trek tv series centered around a Federation President just to settle the discussion.
Hard to imagine anything worse. That politics would be in the background of a rare episode is one thing, focusing on politics would be horrible.
Maybe we need a Star Trek tv series centered around a Federation President just to settle the discussion.
As long as said president is Hiram Roth (the one from ST IV), I'm okay with it!
President Rathcock (Charlie Sheen from Machette Kills), much better choice if there is to be a Federation President main character.
The US President lacks the legal power to declare martial law, that power rests with Congress.
Frequently I do, remember that Memory Alpha is just a fan site, whose members write the articles, the articles are subject to personal interpretation of canon. Some TrekBBS members have written articles over there. Errors are numerous.
Under a state of emergency too, in fact you don't require either in order to "place troops in the streets." American governors can deploy the state's guard with just a phone call.
The President gave the Admiral carte blanche, that much is clear.
Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what the conditions and bounds of the state of emergency were. I very much doubt however it was "carte blanche."
Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what the conditions and bounds of the state of emergency were. I very much doubt however it was "carte blanche."
Doubt all you want but the admiral could do whatever he wanted and if not for Sisko's intervention, he would have taken over the federation permanently. You can't stage a coup unless you have the power, even for a moment. The President had the power TO GIVE the admiral that power, you can't give a power that you don't wield yourself to begin with. The only conclusion one can draw from this is that the President is a very powerful man.
Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what the conditions and bounds of the state of emergency were. I very much doubt however it was "carte blanche."
And of course the President/council could have intervened at any point and say that's too far.
Unfortunately, we don't know exactly what the conditions and bounds of the state of emergency were. I very much doubt however it was "carte blanche."
And of course the President/council could have intervened at any point and say that's too far.
And why in hell would the admiral have attempted to take over if his chances of succeeding weren't very good? As I said, only Sisko's intervention saved the day. That much is certain.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
In a military coup (or a civilian one) the coup itself is the seizing of power. When the Brazilian military seized control of the county in the early 1960's, they already possessed no governmental power, nothing had been previously handed to them.
They used military force and threat of force to grab power. Power that (again) they didn't already have.
What the state of emergency did was let Lawton deploy Starfleet personnel, and suspend certain civil rights.
The following step would have been either a overt coup at some point, or a intermediate step of having more power transfer to himself (or Starfleet). Malnipulate the President into a actual declaration of martial law perhaps.
I don't understand what you're trying to say.
In a military coup (or a civilian one) the coup itself is the seizing of power. When the Brazilian military seized control of the county in the early 1960's, they already possessed no governmental power, nothing had been previously handed to them.
They used military force and threat of force to grab power. Power that (again) they didn't already have.
What the state of emergency did was let Lawton deploy Starfleet personnel, and suspend certain civil rights.
The following step would have been either a overt coup at some point, or a intermediate step of having more power transfer to himself (or Starfleet). Malnipulate the President into a actual declaration of martial law perhaps.
What's that? Now you're pretending that you are completely unaware of the episode we're talking about?
He already HAD the power all he needed was an excuse to keep it. Watch the episode.
Your last sentence makes no sense. Martial law was already in place, all he needed it to make it permanent. Plus you're contradicting yourself. In your eagerness to contradict my argument you've granted the President the power to DECLARE MARTIAL LAW, while your argument from the start was that he didn't have that power.
Make up your mind.
Similar threads
