Can military law outweigh congressional law?

Answer 1

[Note: the term "civil law" here is used to refer to all "normal" congressional law, both normal civil and criminal laws, as well as regulatory and statutory laws]

Actually, the answer is much more complex. I presume the question relates to Military Law as applied to members of the U.S. Military or locations under Military jurisdiction. The U.S. has no concept of "emergency military rule" powers - that is, there is no ability in the U.S. law to suspend civil law and enforce military law instead. Note that enforcement of curfews and such is still part of civil law, and what the media often refers to as "martial law" is still NOT official military law; rather, it is a section of civil law that allows for very temporary curtailment of certain civil rights.

In places where U.S. Military Law (as codified by the UCMJ) is valid (e.g. military bases, war zones, and military vessels or aircraft), military law supercedes civil law; however, in NO CASE, can military law circumvent the Constitution. That is, the U.S. Constitution is still the highest law in the land, and no military law can superceded it. Note that the Supreme Court has ruled that the circumstances around various Constitutional concepts does matter in interpreting laws, so that it is possible for military law to be significantly more restrictive on some constitutional matters than civil law - when applied in the context of a military setting. Thus, freedom of speech is considerably more restricted under military law than civil law.

Also, note that as Congress makes both civil and military law, they can dictate the extent to which military law supercedes or defers to civil law in areas under military jurisdiction. And, more importantly, the Supreme Court is the arbiter of deciding which limited locations the military has jurisdiction. One of the prime modern disputes in this area of jurisdiction is the categorization of "enemy combatants" as it relates to terrorists.

In Lincoln's case above, this actually was ruled unconstitutional (that is, he exceeded his powers as President, and the suspension of Habeus Corpus was actually illegal), but this ruling did not come until much later. The interment of Japanese-decent citizens and legal residents during WW2 was also later ruled to be unconstitutional. Similarly, there is significant consensus amongst Constitutional scholars that many of the expanded Presidential powers claimed by G.W. Bush (and sustained by Obama) are in fact unconstitutional, and, as we receded further from the 9/11 event, the eventuality of them being overturned increases.

In another case, which comes up frequently on TV shows such as N.C.I.S., is the commission of crimes by military personnel. It is not uncommon for a member of the military to commit a crime in some region where military law is not in effect (for instance, in an off-base house or store). If the crime is solely one of a civil nature (i.e. no military law was broken), then the military person committing the crime is automatically subject to civil prosecution, and the military cannot claim immunity or such. However, in a conflict between the military and civil law (i.e. a law was broken under BOTH sets of laws), the military law takes precedence. That is, the criminal is first subject to military trial. Should the military give up this preference, the criminal can be tried under civil law (but NOT BOTH - i.e. they can't be tried under both military and civil law for the same crime). Even if it claims original jurisdiction, the military can be forced to defer to civil law by either the President, or by a Federal Court. Note that all of the above only applies if the military person is the perpetrator (or conspirator, or whatever) - whether or not the victim is under military jurisdiction has no bearing on deciding who gets to prosecute.