Counter Arguments Against Martial Law

A commonly held belief amongst Americans is that martial law (often rephrased as a ‘State of emergency’), can’t and won’t be introduced in America. The facts are that there have already been instances of of martial law in American States, i.e., Hawaii during Pearl Harbour and nationally by Lincoln, but both in time of war.
The difference now is that NDAA law, enshrined within the NDS, provides the right of the Federal government to over ride both congress and State law.

The counter argument of opinion as opposed to fact, proposes that citizens would rise up against martial law. In the case of a declared ‘State of emergency’ in New Orleans during hurricane Katrina, the facts show that the military were able to forcibly confiscate weapons with

A counter argument would say that the law is based on the constitution.
My first question then is why (for what reason), have President’s Bush and Obama both over ruled the constitution and made into law by virtue of NDAA, the authority to declare martial law based on an inclusion of civil disorder (not war or terrorism), with the further authority to abolish habeas corpus, the right to due process under law.

b) Exceptionalism
The argument for this is that America has a type of governance that prevents tyranny, (martial law).
My argument is that the constitution is only worth the paper it’s written on and holds no guarantee other than what the people wish it to be, which is what the Founding Fathers warned against.
The people didn’t wish or vote for mass immigration, NSA spying or mass surveillance of its population. There was no vote to replace the 1878 Congressional Posse Comitatus Act, which forbids military involvement in domestic law enforcement without congressional approval.

My second question. In a society supposedly unique in its limitations of State power, with checks and balances, why is power increasingly being transferred to a central government