What you're discussing is that the House (which under the constitution can set their own rules) decided to create a rule XIII(6)(a) that said that bills couldn't be passed by the House without a day to consider them except by a 2/3 vote. Later, the House changed that rule to waive the requirement to wait a day. Later still, they reinstated it.
Colloquially, the waiver of the rule is sometimes referred to as "martial law", in much the way that proposals to repeal or reform the filibuster rules in the senate are called the "nuclear option". The nuclear option does not involve nuclear weapons, and the so-called "martial law" rule in the senate does not involve martial law. It's not even related to martial law.
Martial law would be a suspension of civil liberties and an injection of military personnel over civilian authorities; it would also necessitate a repeal of habeas corpus and the posse comitatus act. What you're discussing is a minor (and long since reverted) rule change governing when and in what circumstances draft bills could be brought to a floor vote in the house.
The bottom line is this: The minority party in the house wanted to delay and debate the bailout bill. The house—which is charged with setting rules about delays and debate by majority vote-set rules which didn't allow the minority party to delay and debate as much as they wanted. Some members of the minority party, in a fit of hyperbole, analogized the rule change to martial law. It wasn't. It wasn't even sort of LIKE martial law.
TL;DR: You're so wrong, you didn't even understand c-span.
What you're discussing is that the House (which under the constitution can set their own rules) decided to create a rule XIII(6)(a) that said that bills couldn't be passed by the House without a day to consider them except by a 2/3 vote. Later, the House changed that rule to waive the requirement to wait a day. Later still, they reinstated it.
Colloquially, the waiver of the rule is sometimes referred to as "martial law", in much the way that proposals to repeal or reform the filibuster rules in the senate are called the "nuclear option". The nuclear option does not involve nuclear weapons, and the so-called "martial law" rule in the senate does not involve martial law. It's not even related to martial law.
Martial law would be a suspension of civil liberties and an injection of military personnel over civilian authorities; it would also necessitate a repeal of habeas corpus and the posse comitatus act. What you're discussing is a minor (and long since reverted) rule change governing when and in what circumstances draft bills could be brought to a floor vote in the house.
The bottom line is this: The minority party in the house wanted to delay and debate the bailout bill. The house—which is charged with setting rules about delays and debate by majority vote-set rules which didn't allow the minority party to delay and debate as much as they wanted. Some members of the minority party, in a fit of hyperbole, analogized the rule change to martial law. It wasn't. It wasn't even sort of LIKE martial law.
TL;DR: You're so wrong, you didn't even understand c-span.