Philip Stratton, age 15, of Great Falls, Mt., for his question:

JUST WHAT lS MARTIAL LAW?

 Marshall law is the conduct in part or in whole of   government in domestic territory by military agencies, with the consequent suppression of some or all civil agencies.   Sometimes the local government is in trouble and needs   military forces to maintain law and order.  

Martial law receives its justification from the need, when   civil authority is inadequate, to use military force to   suppress insurrection, riot or disorder, or to deal with   public calamity.

  Because martial law is called forth by necessity, the   extent and degree to which it may be employed and may   supersede civil authority also are measured by necessity. In   the United States, the military force that is used may be   furnished by either the federal or state government.   Martial law in the U. S. is not a statutory body of law as   is military law, which is the system of rules governing   military personnel at all times. Although the U.S.   Constitution and statues set forth certain situations in which   federal forces may be used to quell disorder, military law is   essentially a branch of common law.   The civil courts have the ultimate responsibility for determining the limits of martial law and whether or not those limits nave been overstepped in particular cases.   Martial law in the U. S. has been imposed mostly by state   governments. The federal government expressly declared a state   of martial law only during the American Civil War and in   Hawaii during World war 11. However, federal forces have been used in other instances to enforce law or suppress disorder without ara express declaration of martial law having been made.

The phrase "martial law" is not used in the U. S. Constitution. However, authority for the federal government to impose martial law can be found in four constitutional provisions. These sections spell out the nees for the federal government to protect the people.

Trials of civilians by federal military commissions during the Civil war were held invalid by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Ex parte Milliyan, decided in 1866. The case involved the arrest and trial in 1864 of an AmeriCall civilian pacifist by a military commission in Indiana, which was not a theater of military operation and in which the courts were open and functioning.  The court ruled that martial rule can never exist wnen the courts are open and in the proper ana unobstructed exercise of their jurisdiction.

Thne Court also held that the president may not institute trial by military commission even in times of rebellion and civil war, in the absence of congressional legislation. At present it is likely that military trials of civilians can be justified only in areas of total devastation where no apparent opportunity exists for the resumption of normal judicial functions in the foreseeable future.