3 ms·

That's not what rule of law is. Rule of law requires following the established constitutional order which the Nazis did not. A feudal king ruling on his whims h

That's not what rule of law is. Rule of law requires following the established constitutional order which the Nazis did not. A feudal king ruling on his whims has many laws, but there is not rule of law.

ty6853 2y ago
The controlled substance act violated the constitution as it regulates even intrastate trade of drugs. It relies on the tyrannical Wickard V Filburn ruling which says intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce. The charges against Ross relied on law that flagrantly transgress the 10th amendment of the US constitution as written and as enforced. This is why they needed an actual amendment to nationally ban, say, home made liquor.
- suddenlybananas 2y ago
  I don't think that legal argument is accurate, but hey, I'm not a lawyer and neither are you.
  - ty6853 2y ago
    It was 'accurate' until the 1930s when a certain lawyer with initials FDR found his programs unconstitutional, so he threatened to pack the Supreme Court until they were willing to shit can the 10th amendment.
kybernetyk 2y ago
>The rule of law is a political and legal ideal that all people and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers, government officials, and judges. But the Nazis themselves were accountable to their own laws. It was a highly lawful state. Only the laws were pretty fucked because the society lacked any morality.
- suddenlybananas 2y ago
  >all people and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killings_by_the_Nazi_regime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killing...
  - kybernetyk 2y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killings_by_the_United_States_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killing...
    - suddenlybananas 2y ago
      Yes those were also violations of the rule of law, thank you for the examples.
- computerthings 2y ago
  > It was a highly lawful state. I know what you mean, and I do agree with your main point about not blindly following orders. I hope most people do. It's just the way you phrase it, I also have to disagree. The Nazis at their core were not "lawful", not even "lawful evil". Not unless the one law is "as long Hitler says it's fine, it's fine". > Any hierarchy, no matter how authoritatively managed, and any communication of orders, no matter how autocratically and dictatorially issued, would stabilize and thus limit the total power of the leader of a totalitarian movement. In the language of the Nazis, it is the dynamic, never-resting "will of the leader" (and not his orders, which could be given a definable authority) that becomes the "supreme law of total rule". -- Hannah Arendt, "Origins of Totalitarianism" Also: https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ah1-hitlers-orders/ https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ah1-hitlers-orders/ > Hitler did sign an order for the T-4 euthanasia program. In the T-4 program as many as 100,000 German citizens who were thought to be ‘unworthy of life’ were murdered by Nazi party authorities and other German collaborators. When the German population caught on to what the Nazis were doing with T-4, they protested and Hitler was forced to publicly back down and cancel the program (although it continued secretly in the camps). Having been embarrassed by a written order once, Hitler became wary of doing it again. Important Nazi officials confirmed the oral transmission of Hitler’s secretive orders.

ty6853 2y ago

The controlled substance act violated the constitution as it regulates even intrastate trade of drugs. It relies on the tyrannical Wickard V Filburn ruling which says intrastate commerce is actually interstate commerce. The charges against Ross relied on law that flagrantly transgress the 10th amendment of the US constitution as written and as enforced. This is why they needed an actual amendment to nationally ban, say, home made liquor.

suddenlybananas 2y ago
I don't think that legal argument is accurate, but hey, I'm not a lawyer and neither are you.
- ty6853 2y ago
  It was 'accurate' until the 1930s when a certain lawyer with initials FDR found his programs unconstitutional, so he threatened to pack the Supreme Court until they were willing to shit can the 10th amendment.

kybernetyk 2y ago

>The rule of law is a political and legal ideal that all people and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws, including lawmakers, government officials, and judges. But the Nazis themselves were accountable to their own laws. It was a highly lawful state. Only the laws were pretty fucked because the society lacked any morality.

suddenlybananas 2y ago
>all people and institutions within a country, state, or community are accountable to the same laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killings_by_the_Nazi_regime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killing...
- kybernetyk 2y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killings_by_the_United_States_military https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Extrajudicial_killing...
  - suddenlybananas 2y ago
    Yes those were also violations of the rule of law, thank you for the examples.
computerthings 2y ago
> It was a highly lawful state. I know what you mean, and I do agree with your main point about not blindly following orders. I hope most people do. It's just the way you phrase it, I also have to disagree. The Nazis at their core were not "lawful", not even "lawful evil". Not unless the one law is "as long Hitler says it's fine, it's fine". > Any hierarchy, no matter how authoritatively managed, and any communication of orders, no matter how autocratically and dictatorially issued, would stabilize and thus limit the total power of the leader of a totalitarian movement. In the language of the Nazis, it is the dynamic, never-resting "will of the leader" (and not his orders, which could be given a definable authority) that becomes the "supreme law of total rule". -- Hannah Arendt, "Origins of Totalitarianism" Also: https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ah1-hitlers-orders/ https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/ah1-hitlers-orders/ > Hitler did sign an order for the T-4 euthanasia program. In the T-4 program as many as 100,000 German citizens who were thought to be ‘unworthy of life’ were murdered by Nazi party authorities and other German collaborators. When the German population caught on to what the Nazis were doing with T-4, they protested and Hitler was forced to publicly back down and cancel the program (although it continued secretly in the camps). Having been embarrassed by a written order once, Hitler became wary of doing it again. Important Nazi officials confirmed the oral transmission of Hitler’s secretive orders.