Point taken.
The president’s ability to impose martial rule is ill defined - I think Posse Comitatus touches on it, as does the War Powers Act. The most direct discussion is in the Insurrection Act, which reads in part:
ß 332. Use of militia and armed forces to enforce Federal authority
Whenever the President considers that unlawful obstructions, combinations, or assemblages, or rebellion against the authority of the United States, make it impracticable to enforce the laws of the United States in any State or Territory by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, he may call into Federal service such of the militia of any State, and use such of the armed forces, as he considers necessary to enforce those laws or to suppress the rebellion.ß 333. Interference with State and Federal law
The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy…
Those are broad powers and I’m not sure that a desperate president, backed up by a spineless majority, wouldn’t abuse them to issue entirely lawful orders to the military. Then again, I’m not particularly knowledgeable in this area at all, so I may be imagining things.
