Flynn Calls For Martial Law To Redo Election, Is It Legal?

U.S. Soldiers of Alpha Battery, 3rd Battalion, 29th Field Artillery Regiment, 3rd Brigade, 4th Infantry Division, search homes for illegal weapons in the city of Baghdad, Iraq on Feb. 1, 2009. They are trying to find the unlawful weapons to try to make the city a safer place to live.

We are now at the martial law stage of 2020.

Retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who was pardoned last week by President Donald Trump, retweeted a call for the president to declare a limited form of martial law in order to redo the 2020 presidential election in which he said “Freedom never kneels except for God.”

The call came from a group that calls itself the “We The People Convention” and its president Tom Zawistowski, who says the group is affiliated with the tea party.

“We wanted to express our concerns to the President, to the legislators, courts and Congress that We the People will NOT cede our exclusive Constitutional right to elect our Representatives to judges, lawyers, courts, Governors, Secretary’s of State, Congress, corrupt election officials and local politicians, the corrupt media – or Leftist threats of violence! It is OUR EXCLUSIVE RIGHT to elect our President and that sacred right has been infringed by the massive, planned, illegal election fraud conducted by corrupt Democrat/Socialist Party operatives across our nation to steal our vote. We will NOT stand for it,” he said.

It is important to note that, while widespread claims of fraud in the 2020 presidential election have been made none have yet to be proven.

The group cited the suspension of Habeas Corpus by former President Abraham Lincoln as an example of the president’s authority.

“On June 12, 1863, Lincoln defended his extreme measures in a letter published in the New York Times. Citing Article I of the Constitution he argued: ‘Ours is a case of rebellion…in fact, a clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of rebellion; and the provision of the Constitution that ‘the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it’, is the provision which specifically applies to our present case,’” it said.

Declaring martial law is not as cut and dry as some may think. The Constitution is noticeably silent on the issue.

As well-known attorney Alan Dershowitz said in a piece he published in The Hill in June, the closest the Constitution comes to talking about martial law is in a prohibition of suspending the writ of habeas corpus “unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Dershowitz said that the courts would get the last word in any case of martial law declared by the president.

Dershowitz was writing in relation to declaring martial law to get the protests that were raging nationwide under control, but the gist remains the same. The president would face a mountain of judicial challenges if he attempted to declare martial law.

And while this may seem like an attractive option for those who believe the election was stolen, the precedent set by it and the long terms effects could be devastating to the nation.

What then would stop a Democrat president from declaring martial law, which would suspend the Constitution, to combat climate change or seize weapons for safety after a series of mass shootings?

The legal challenges to the election are not over and the president’s attorneys are continuing to make the case to state legislatures. Martial law would be the nuclear option and it should never come to that.


Have a story you want USA Herald to cover? Submit a tip here and if we think it’s newsworthy, we’ll follow up on it.

Want to contribute a story? We also accept article submissions – check out our writer’s guidelines here.