When I hear sustainable or the greater good I run like hell. Thanks Freedomforall.

When a local or state government ties the hands of law enforcement and allows violent anarchy to victimize the public, what actions should the citizenry take, then? Vigliantism or untrained citizen militias are the only alternatives to federal action in these circumstances, and the results would likely be much more bloodshed than that resulting from the actions of a military police force trained in crowd control.

The Insurrection Act was intended to justify a path to the conditions that would require martial law. In Oregon and Washington State the mayors of Portland and Seattle have placed impossible restrictions on police that make their ability to control violent crowds impossible. The governors have failed to act as well.

When the life and property of a state's citizens are in danger, and the governor of that state is either unwilling or incapable of removing that danger, the President can declare that state in a condition of insurrection and impose martial law. Further, he can dissolve the state government and impose a federal marshal to oversee new election of state government.

The U.S. military is experienced in orderly crowd control, having decades of suppressing violence overseas. The chaos in our major cities has the distinct possibility of spinning out of control, as Antifa and BLM are moving up the chain of violence. If the left wing mayors and governors continue to justify the violence and property destruction, and restrict the actions of law enforcement, martial law may be the only defense law abiding citizens have.

When you try to think of what freedoms people should have, always think of how free YOU want to be. When to try to think of what power the gov should have over people, only think of the power you want them to have in terms of your political opposition being in power. If the freedom isn't free enough for me, it isn't free enough. If the power would be terrifying in the hands of an opponent, then it shouldn't be granted to the gov.

Martial law is fine externally, after we defeat another country that has attacked us, and we are restoring order to that country (Japan, Germany, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.)

I can only imagine a proper case domestically, if we have been overrun by an external enemy. Then it must be instituted.

Never as a police action. Ever.

I think the only time martial law is acceptable is for an existential threat posed by threat of war. That doesn't include the so-called threats of a biological agent but surely would if war were declared against the nation which launched that weapon in the first place. Without an actual declaration of war, there should be no invocation of martial law.

Some would say that the recent riots in so many places constitute an existential threat worthy of declaring martial law. To that I simply say "No." Get your law enforcement in action and start arresting people. The bigger problem there is that we aren't trying some of these people for treason and hanging them. You can bet that would get the attention of many of those participants.

I have lost a lot of respect for our government since the whole corona thing. It is unconstitutional for our government at any level to forbid people from freely dealing with each other and shutting down the economy. We are all paying for these governmental actions, and may not recover for a LONG time.

Never acceptable!

No martial law ever.

Would a petition by local small businesses for assistance from the federal government be acceptable reason for federal intervention, assuming that the petitioners had been refused help by local and state officials?

Is martial law an imposition of initiated force?

My take is that martial law is simply an "extreme means" -- not wrong per se, but comparable to revolution as something you save for dire emergencies.

But government has an absolute duty to protect people and their property from riots. And if federalism stands in the way, as seems to be true in cities that aren't even trying to stop the riots or punish the perps, then it is morally mandatory to sweep federalism aside and get the job done.

If the president will not do so, then we will have to hope some warlord arises who will do it for us, just as Pinochet, or someone like him, was the only way for Chileans to take their country back once Communists took it over. If he had not appeared, that country would still be the hell that Venezuela is.

To answer rdjohnson56' question, by martial law I simply mean the use of army troops or Marines to do law enforcement jobs that local police ought to be doing but can't or won't. Other possible special actions by government do also deserve discussion, but "emergency powers" makes more sense as a label for the broad category.

Ok. I think we need to back up a minute. I would like to see a discussion, now, about just what is "martial law"? Let's define what it is. What exactly happens during "martial law"? What restrictions, exactly, are to be placed upon citizens' movements, speech, rights to do business, etc, etc. will be enforced? That's what I would like to know first before I would/could say "never" to do or "maybe" based on circumstances.