The only thing stopping Trump right now is the courts. Martial law is an endrun around the courts.
Yes, he is breaking laws, but once the court actually steps up and tells him to stop, he does. We unfortunately have a long history of extrajudicial foreign action that the courts just don’t care about, but that’s not the same as deploying military to one’s own country.
Your concern with people open-carrying at ICE protests is that it risks creating a situation where Trump can declare Martial Law. If that happens, he could use bombs against civilians, with no way for the courts to tell him to stop.
You agree that there is nothing stopping him from using tanks and bombs on civilians right now, but if he does, the courts will tell him to stop at some point in the future. And he probably would, but then he would come back later, probably with more weaponry.
Now that’s a whole lot of stuff I didn’t say. You wanted to know how Martial Law would be different than what we’ve got now, and I gave you the answer.
Of course not. I’m asking what declaring Martial Law would change.
Martial Law would mean the real military rolling into towns, and the loss of recourse in the courts for federal overreach.
Currently we just have ICE, national guard, and police assaulting us, but under martial law there will be things like tanks and drone bombs.
You believe the only thing stopping that is Trump saying “I declare Martial Law”?
He also can’t just kidnap a foreign leader without notifying congress – except he actually just can.
The only thing stopping Trump right now is the courts. Martial law is an endrun around the courts.
Yes, he is breaking laws, but once the court actually steps up and tells him to stop, he does. We unfortunately have a long history of extrajudicial foreign action that the courts just don’t care about, but that’s not the same as deploying military to one’s own country.
Stopping him how?
Like when? And what good is telling him to stop after he’s already done the thing? What’s to stop him from just defying it again?
I’m referring to things like this:
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/12/31/donald-trump-national-guard-deployment-00708714
You may think it’s ineffective, but it’s why we’re not staring down the barrel of a tank right now.
Let me know if I’m summarizing this fairly:
Your concern with people open-carrying at ICE protests is that it risks creating a situation where Trump can declare Martial Law. If that happens, he could use bombs against civilians, with no way for the courts to tell him to stop.
You agree that there is nothing stopping him from using tanks and bombs on civilians right now, but if he does, the courts will tell him to stop at some point in the future. And he probably would, but then he would come back later, probably with more weaponry.
Now that’s a whole lot of stuff I didn’t say. You wanted to know how Martial Law would be different than what we’ve got now, and I gave you the answer.
I can quote everything I included in that summary if you give me examples of things you think you didn’t say.