In the event of impeachment, the House of Representatives acts as a prosecutor and the Senate as a judge and decides whether or not to impeach the president. The House of Representatives has brought eleven charges against Johnson, all of which allege his interference with the powers of Congress. In the Senate, Johnson narrowly survived. Seven Republicans joined Democrats and independents in supporting an acquittal; The final vote was 35 to 19, one vote short of the required two-thirds majority. The radicals later abandoned the impeachment process, but events effectively silenced President Johnson, and the radical Republicans went ahead with their plan to rebuild the South. Two theories of martial law are reflected in Supreme Court decisions. The first, from the Law Petition of 1628, provides that the common law has no martial law;223 that is, martial law is not established by any official authority, but derives from the nature of things, since it is the law of supreme necessity and leaves the final judges to the civil courts out of necessity.224 According to the second theory, Martial law can be used in time of war by the highest political authority. and imposed by the Constitution. In the early years of the Supreme Court, the American judiciary adopted the latter theory, as suggested in Luther v. Borden,225 that the state`s declarations of martial law were conclusive and therefore not subject to judicial review.226 In this case, the Court held that the Rhode Island legislature was entitled to invoke the laws and customs of war to combat insurrection in that state. The Prize Cases decision,227 while not directly relevant to the question of martial law, gave the same general principle national significance in 1863. The story of President Johnson`s impeachment is explained in this video. However, since the Civil War was certainly over, a court divided in the Milligan case,228 which reverted to the old doctrine, overturned President Lincoln`s trial after he suspended the habeas corpus mandate in September 1863 by ordering the trial of individuals imprisoned as “spies” and “instigators of the enemy” by a military commission.
The most important passage of the Court`s opinion on this point is as follows: “If, in the event of a foreign invasion or civil war, the courts are effectively closed and it is impossible to administer the criminal justice system in accordance with the law, then in the scene of active military operations, where war actually prevails, It is necessary to substitute civil authority. overthrown in such a way as to preserve the security of the military and society; And since there is no power but the army, it is permissible to rule in time of war until the laws can function freely. As necessity creates the rule, it limits its duration; Because if this government continues after the courts are restored, it is a gross usurpation of power. Martial law can never exist when the courts are open and exercise their jurisdiction properly and without hindrance. It is also limited to the site of the actual war. 229 Four judges who spoke of Chief Justice Chase quashed Milligan`s trial on the grounds that it violated the law of March 3, 1863, which governed the custody and trial of persons deprived of the privilege of habeas corpus, and stated that they believed Congress could have approved Milligan`s trial. The Chief Justice wrote: “Congress has the power not only to raise, support, and govern armies, but also to declare war. It therefore has the power to provide by law for the continuation of war. This power necessarily extends to all laws essential to a vigorous and successful war, except those which interfere with the conduct of the armed forces and the conduct of the countryside. That power and duty belongs to the president as commander-in-chief. Both powers derive from the Constitution, but neither is defined by this instrument.
Its scope must be determined by its nature and by the principles of our institutions. Martial law has been declared more than 60 times in U.S. history, mostly by state and local officials. However, the concept has no set definition. The Supreme Court`s limited precedent on martial law is old, vague and contradictory.