Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

apnews.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 739 posts

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#501

Post by ANewFormation »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #480
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.

If I recall correctly, I thought there was some legal provision in the US for the military to disobey unconstitutional orders. If it doesn't exist de jure , I suppose it always exists de facto , both in the US and elsewhere. I think it is always interesting when the curtain gets pulled back to reveal how all of our political systems and norms simply overlay the fact that power is the ultimate law of the land.

In the oath officer's swear, it is exclusively to the Constitution - with no mention of anything but - swearing to protect against enemies foreign and domestic.

Interestingly the oath for enlisted does include a section on obeying the President, subject to the military Code.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#502

Post by ibejoeb »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #466
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Those military officials are certainly aware of what generally happens to perpetrators of failed coups. They're following the law. The Constitution obligates the President to lift martial law after the National Assembly nullifies it.

The question is then what the Constitution says about a president who fails to execute his constitutional obligations, such as lifting martial law once it is nullified. Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations or a faster solution. I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.

>I don't even know if there is a faster route than impeachment in the US system.

There's section 4 of the 25th amendment, but it is untested.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#503

Post by kupopuffs »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #480
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Is there an impeachment process for a constitutional violations There's an impeachment process. Creating a separate, faster one for constitutional violations is just inviting trouble.

If I recall correctly, I thought there was some legal provision in the US for the military to disobey unconstitutional orders. If it doesn't exist de jure , I suppose it always exists de facto , both in the US and elsewhere. I think it is always interesting when the curtain gets pulled back to reveal how all of our political systems and norms simply overlay the fact that power is the ultimate law of the land.

they dropped the lingo but didn't do the homework

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#504

Post by jmyeet »

dyauspitr wrote: post #469
zelon88 wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The paradox is; Society should benefit everyone equally. If it doesn't, then the ones who are not benefiting have a social responsibility to adjust it until it does. By hook or by crook, for better or worse. Equity is usually pretty difficult to swallow for those who are benefiting inequitably. But the thing is, if it's not working for everyone, it isn't working at all and it should probably be broken the rest of the…

This is presumptively assuming that being a homemaker is an objectively “worse” position. I think a lot of women would disagree with that position, possibly the majority. Equity cannot mean that everyone works in an office, it should also mean that women that want to stay at home should be able to without being forced into a corporate world by the economy/circumstances.

Either this is “traditional” misogyny wrapped up in a pseudo intellectual veneer or you fundamentally don’t understand the issue or what the commenter was saying. I say “traditional” because what’s fetishized as “traditional” was only true for a very narrow period in history and it necessitated a underclass of low paid help.

Feminism is about equality of opportunity and not necessarily being bound by traditional gender roles. That doesn’t mean someone can’t be a homemaker. It means no one should be forced to be. It means everyone should autonomy over their own bodies.

You made a wild suggestion that having more children years ago somehow is evidence of a lack of misogyny.

North Korean women have more children because of poverty, a lack of options and limited to no access to birth control. South Korean women 50+ years ago had more children for basically the same reasons .

South Korea has created a society where women have much higher expectations yet they’re paid less for the same jobs, moreso than most OECD countries. The US is down a path where people can’t afford housing and need multiple jobs to make ends meet. What we see is an entirely predictable drop in people having children.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#505

Post by ineedaj0b »

Kye wrote: post #431

Two informational live threads: https://bsky.app/profile/antonhur.com/post/3lcfxpcpmuc24 https://bsky.app/profile/sarahjeong.bsky.social/post/3lcfxvf... My understanding based on just finding out about this and skimming a bit: President declared martial law to distract from some embarrassing thing Military starts enforcing Assembly votes to outlaw martial law Military stands down

nothing loads but a butterfly

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#506

Post by jajko »

Rapzid wrote: post #422
jmyeet wrote: post #173

South Korea is dying. It has the lowest birth rate in the world: ~0.78 children per woman. If you want to know what that means, take 100 people (50 men, 50 women). In 3 generations there are... 6 people. That's population collapse. Every developed nation is barreling towards this fate. It's what end stage capitalism and 5 chaebols-in-a-trenchcoat as a government looks like. The only thing preventing population collap…

They are quite open to immigration now. If you've been recently you'd know they are practically begging people to move there and make babies.

Any such country who is not doing it for the show but honestly trying would have to tear down most if not all cultural barriers. SK sounds like one of the last places for this to actually work.

There is about 200 millions of africans and north of 500 millions of asians in extreme poverty who would give their left leg to move to modern democracy, if it would be feasible. Heck, they are dying by hundreds trying to cross rough seas like mediterranean.

'quite open to immigration' is most probably not what we should call it, if expectations are around 100% knowledge of language and very obscure culture and its rules right out of the box to be at least tolerated.

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#507

Post by s1artibartfast »

cogman10 wrote: post #495
all2 wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suddenly the rationale of the 2nd Amendment in the US Constitution becomes clear.

The 2nd amendment was added because the founding fathers didn't want a federal military. Instead, they wanted every state to have its own militia [1]. The interpretation that it means every private citizen can own a gun is modern not historic. It wasn't until the 2008 DC V Heller case that the right to firearms was actually established. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29

Absolutely incorrect. The state militias consisted of private citizens with their own arms who would organize when needed, not standing state armies with government issued arms.

Also, private gun ownership was the norm at the time.

Heller draws it's decision from historical reality and originalist philosophy

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#508

Post by meiraleal »

busterarm wrote: post #394
sofixa wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

At the same time, they're spread thin and their influence is actually waning. A lot of African countries that kicked western forces out and started working with Wagner Group are now courting the US Military to come back in because Wagner has been getting their asses kicked by insurgent forces all across the continent. Because of current alliances though it does very much feel like we're in the middle of a global arme…

> France is in the middle of losing the last of its colonial empire and Russia & China are trying to muscle in to fill that void, with varying success

Nobody is crying for that in Africa

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#509

Post by limit499karma »

jajko wrote: post #486
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #458

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> standard constitutional remedy is to have martial law automatically expire after a few days (without being able to be imposed afterwards for a while, etc.) unless the parliament votes to confirm it This is in practice useless. The time for action is while the usurper is conslidating power. After a few days, they've either won or lost.

Yeah, as russia has shown any treaties all the way up to constitutions are only worth something if all power parties agree to respect them. Otherwise just a wishful thinking or food for academic discussions.

Just Russia?

Re: South Korean president declares martial law, parliament votes to lift it

#510

Post by derefr »

blitzar wrote: post #316
etiam wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure that's a worst case scenario? Pyongyang has clearly decided to get their troops current live combat experience and is soliciting military assistance from a larger aggressive dictatorship, which is however very busy elsewhere right now. That reason would be awful, and most likely the consequences too, but it's not readily obvious to me that the timing would be.

The South marching north would force China into the conflict and the West would very tentitatively stand by while South Koreans were being fed into a meat grinder. Should South Korea manage to unify North & South it would bankrupt them. The North marching South would get little to no support from their allies and would be repelled rapidly before returning to the current status quo. So yes, I am sure. Neither sides al…

> Should South Korea manage to unify North & South it would bankrupt them.

What if they didn't do that (at first), but instead (as an intermediate step) annexed the north as a colony with its own economy but South Korean governorship; and then opened said colony to worldwide foreign aid?

This would be very similar to the short-term arrangement negotiated between West Germany and East Germany after the fall of the Berlin wall. For analogous reasons, West Germany didn't want to immediately absorb/unify with East Germany; instead, they held political and military stewardship over East Germany until it could be built back up.

Post reply on HN