But that's because it's what your fee-fees want, not because it's what the actual threats are.

The United States doesn't have a federal provision for "martial law." states can impose martial law. The Feds can suspend habeas corpus. Could the supreme court back up Trump's notion that he can "impose martial law?" Sure they can. At which point you get to find out which states think states' rights matter more. The supreme court is aware of this - in many, many ways they rule by the consent of the governed. And they probably don't want to deal with roughly 50 governors going "wait that's my job."

There's a pretty big air gap between "things the libs are afraid of" and "things Trump can do effortlessly." We've never had to go "I wonder what happens if a president declares martial law" before, granted, and I don't think it's great either. But the Senate already played "you are not the boss of me" with Gaetz and Hoggseth. You think they're going to go 'well okay I guess we're powerless pawns of an incompetent dictator now?'

Why do you think that?