Re: Impeachment a possiblity after all

The simple answer: yes and no.

With a Constitution being properly defended and enforced, no, martial law does not stop impeachment. The closest the Constitution comes to this question is it's provision that Habeas Corpus shall not be denied. The only exception it allows is during extreme circumstances (insurrection), during which it might be necessary to temporarily suspend Habeas Corpus. There is a wide gulf, a big difference between the authorization to temporarily suspend Habeas Corpus during the rare extreme times of insurrection versus the wholesale rendering of the Constitution, in total, to null and void status, whenever the USG says so. Over the years, liberal argument making use of radically liberal interpretation have gradually succeeded in shaping the Constitution's provision for Habeas Corpus so as to equate as though one and the same with the authority to indiscriminately terminate the Constitution by way of Martial Law.

What evidence is there in the present that supports the idea that the Constitution is being properly defended and enforced?

A person[s] who will not stand up for their rights effectively has no rights. If and when the Constitution is not being defended, a person[s] effectively has no rights, anything goes, the law effectively becomes whatever they (our lawmakers sworn to protect & uphold the rule of Constitution as the law of the land) say it is. As such, if and as they please, they can uphold select portions of the Constitution one day as that might serve their purpose, then turn around the next day and completely disregard the same Constitution if and as that might serve their purpose. If, for instance, they say that Martial Law means anything they want it to mean, to include the authority to stop impeachment proceedings, so be it. If they say that martial law means they have the authority to rape, pillage and plunder without recourse, so be it. Does a sign or camera posted along a road way actually effect the enforcement of people's safe driving habits? Generally speaking, no, neither the sign nor the camera actually effects enforcement. Sure, with the aid of the camera, they can mail you a citation with fine without ever having pulled you over, but even this does not actually stop a reckless driver. As long as a reckless person has access to the tools needed to conduct recklessness - namely keys and a car with gas in the tank, to this day it still requires an actual person[s] on site to effect the enforcement against reckless drivers. The Constitution is sort of the same way; it requires actual people behind it to enforce reckless assaults upon it's directives.
Tweet