• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Would Hitler have favored the 14th amendment?

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
I think so, because he favored union over States' rights as he made very clear in his lincolnite critique of confederalism in his autobiography, mein kampf.

He believed that union was superior to liberty and that the former was supreme to the States that voluntarily joined it.

For the record, I completely favor judges and congressman who support States' rights over individual rights, States' rights over the federal govt, and individual rights over the federal govt. Unfortunately, the only justice who favored the compact theory got replaced by the (nationally socialist) Federalist party. Since then we've had only federalists and unionists (it should be noted that Lincoln was such an extreme unionist that he even tried to have Roger B. Taney's ass arrested). The last Jeffersonian President of (then-recently superconsolidated) America who was sympathetic to secessionists was the Last Good Democrat. As far as Congress goes, the situation there is the saddest of all 3 branches... and that's because we're about to see the Last Good member of the u.s. govt, Dr. Paul, make his departure from attempting to legislate confederalism for the people and for future generations.

All of that said, I offer my conclusion... and it is that Hitler was an extreme lincolnite because he couldn't even tolerate federalism (which is a compromise between confederalism and unionism).
 

Doppel

Lifer
Feb 5, 2011
13,313
2
0
Hitler would have voted for Dr. Paul and given all his resources to Dr. Paul's winning the campaign. Then he would have created an army of Anarchist420s to rule the land.
 

CallMeJoe

Diamond Member
Jul 30, 2004
6,940
5
81
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the Third Reich, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the Third Reich and of the Administrative Division wherein they reside. No Administrative Division shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the Third Reich; nor shall any Administrative Division deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Where does that leave the Final Solution?
 

MovingTarget

Diamond Member
Jun 22, 2003
8,990
84
91
Hitler saw democracy (even in representative, as opposed to direct form) as a means to an end. He wouldn't have supported the concept of our constitution, much less the 14th amendment. His views on the US and the American people are well known. Your attempt to draw a comparison between Hitler and the 14th amendment are quite transparent. It isn't going to work.
 

Pr0d1gy

Diamond Member
Jan 30, 2005
7,776
0
76
Hitler would favor a lot of what we do in this country, especially the propaganda and misinformation.
 

K1052

Lifer
Aug 21, 2003
36,380
10,242
136
Hitler would favor a lot of what we do in this country, especially the propaganda and misinformation.
He wouldn't like the hipsters strutting around in their fair trade skinny jeans and rolling on fixed gear bikes. COMMUNISTS!!!
 

Abraxas

Golden Member
Oct 26, 2004
1,056
0
0
Oh FFS. You know, Anarchist, I've always suspected you were kind of slow but you're a full on retard, aren't you? Do you even know what is in the 14th Amendment?
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yes, Hitler was big on not abridging the life, liberty, and property of citizens without due process. Especially not Jews. Also, he was a big fan of giving Jewish citizens equal protection under the law. :rolleyes:
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Hitler was well known for his support of elections and elected legislatures. :rolleyes:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Hitler was famous for allowing those engaged in rebellion to hold office again just so long they could get a pardon from an elected legislature. :rolleyes:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Yeah, the Third Reich always paid back what they took to fund their war effort. :rolleyes:
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Most of all, Hitler was a big fan of giving control of his policies to an elected body to enforce. :rolleyes:

Now, I know it is your personal crusade to make people think of Lincoln in the same way they think of Hitler because, I don't know, he ended your dream of owning black people before you were born, but this is asinine and you look asinine posting it.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
16,891
4,646
136
I think so, because he favored union over States' rights as he made very clear in his lincolnite critique of confederalism in his autobiography, mein kampf.

He believed that union was superior to liberty and that the former was supreme to the States that voluntarily joined it.

For the record, I completely favor judges and congressman who support States' rights over individual rights, States' rights over the federal govt, and individual rights over the federal govt. Unfortunately, the only justice who favored the compact theory got replaced by the (nationally socialist) Federalist party. Since then we've had only federalists and unionists (it should be noted that Lincoln was such an extreme unionist that he even tried to have Roger B. Taney's ass arrested). The last Jeffersonian President of (then-recently superconsolidated) America who was sympathetic to secessionists was the Last Good Democrat. As far as Congress goes, the situation there is the saddest of all 3 branches... and that's because we're about to see the Last Good member of the u.s. govt, Dr. Paul, make his departure from attempting to legislate confederalism for the people and for future generations.

All of that said, I offer my conclusion... and it is that Hitler was an extreme lincolnite because he couldn't even tolerate federalism (which is a compromise between confederalism and unionism).
I don't know about the 14th ammendment but he'd probably favor some winer sniztle and a good Mosel to wash it down.
 

Smoblikat

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2011
5,185
107
106
Hitler would have voted for Dr. Paul and given all his resources to Dr. Paul's winning the campaign. Then he would have created an army of Anarchist420s to rule the land.
Sounds like he would have an army of stoned rebels without a cause.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
I can't believe some of the responses I've got about this. First and foremost... just because the States may not deprive an individual of life liberty or property without due process, doesn't mean the federal govt can't. That said, the 14th amendment doesn't really stop the federal govt from performing genocide, it just prohibits the States from doing it.

It is wrong to say that hitler was not acting in the spirit of most (if not all) of the 14th amendment, because the 14th amendment was never meant to prevent genocide. I'll admit the jus soli mandate is debatable as to whether it's Hitlerian, but I could make a pretty good case that even that part wasn't anti-fascist. First of all, the early republicans were nativist. Secondly, the "c" wasnt capitalized, so they meant for everyone to be a subject (rather than a Citizen) and subjected to their laws. They also just would've abolished laws regarding naturalization altogether if they really wanted everyone to be a Citizen. As for the enforcement section... congress envisioned by the radical republicans was meant to be nationalist and to be able to enforce any law it wanted, and that's why they put it in there.

I must be the only one here who ever heard of what the radical republicans did to the indigenous Americans.
 
Dec 10, 2005
20,875
2,321
126
It is wrong to say that hitler was not acting in the spirit of most (if not all) of the 14th amendment, because the 14th amendment was never meant to prevent genocide
By that logic, he must have been acting in the spirit of the rest of the Constitution as well, as it says nothing about genocide in any of it. :rolleyes:
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
By that logic, he must have been acting in the spirit of the rest of the Constitution as well, as it says nothing about genocide in any of it. :rolleyes:
It does have a bill of rights which could stop the federal govt from genocide if the supreme court doesnt rule in favor of the necessary and proper clause( mixed with something) else instead. However, the 14th amendment makes it easier for there to be genocide because it increases the power of the federal govt at the expense of the States and it affirms the supremacy of the federal govt over the States and the people.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,450
20
81
I think so, because he favored union over States' rights as he made very clear in his lincolnite critique of confederalism in his autobiography, mein kampf.
Why is having 50 different countries necessarily better than having one single country? What if those 50 separate countries were despotic? Wouldn't one nation with good laws be better than 50 separate countries with shitty laws?

If having 50 separate countries is better than having 1 nation with good laws, then why not have 5000 separate nations? Or 500,000? Or just outright anarchy?
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,520
0
0
It does have a bill of rights which could stop the federal govt from genocide if the supreme court doesnt rule in favor of the necessary and proper clause( mixed with something) else instead. However, the 14th amendment makes it easier for there to be genocide because it increases the power of the federal govt at the expense of the States and it affirms the supremacy of the federal govt over the States and the people.
What makes a state less likely to engage in "genocide" or other negative actions than the federal government would be? I have NEVER understood the magical power states' rights people seem to think state government has that the federal government somehow lacks. Particularly since the rise of the federal government in general, and the 14th amendment in particular, came about because of the Civil War. Which featured, among other things, states demonstrating an incredible lack of responsible or civilized behavior (a tradition the Confederate states managed to carry on for quite some time). That is mainly what fueled the 14th amendment and the associated interpretation of the relationship between the federal government and the states.
 

Anarchist420

Diamond Member
Feb 13, 2010
8,649
0
76
www.facebook.com
Why is having 50 different countries necessarily better than having one single country? What if those 50 separate countries were despotic? Wouldn't one nation with good laws be better than 50 separate countries with shitty laws?

If having 50 separate countries is better than having 1 nation with good laws, then why not have 5000 separate nations? Or 500,000? Or just outright anarchy?
Um, you pretty much answered your own question:) That is, the more sovereigns there are, the closer things are to anarchy.

One nation with good laws isn't possible because it will certainly have some bad ones and those will be more difficult to evade and it makes it easier for that nation to invade another one. The probability of having good laws in at least one of 50 is a lot higher than the probability of having good laws in one. Also, if there are 50 vs. one, then a good example will eventually be set as long as power isn't centralized before that can happen... although I do admit that it may be inevitable for confederations to be (illegally) replaced before that can happen. However, we need some more confederations before we can make a conclusion.
 

Thump553

Lifer
Jun 2, 2000
11,859
1,187
126
Hitler would have voted for Dr. Paul and given all his resources to Dr. Paul's winning the campaign. Then he would have created an army of Anarchist420s to rule the land.
I think you got the bolded part wrong. The correct statement is "Then he would have created an army of Anarchist420s to easily roll over while conquering America."
 

NoStateofMind

Diamond Member
Oct 14, 2005
9,716
6
76
Now, I know it is your personal crusade to make people think of Lincoln in the same way they think of Hitler because, I don't know, he ended your dream of owning black people before you were born, but this is asinine and you look asinine posting it.
You are a fool. Read history before you make idiotic statements like the above.

Abraham Lincoln responded to the crisis wielding powers as no other president before him. He distributed $2,000,000 from the Treasury for war material without an appropriation from Congress; he called for 75,000 volunteers into military service without a declaration of war; and he suspended the writ of habeas corpus, arresting and imprisoning suspected Confederate sympathizers without a warrant. Crushing the rebellion would be difficult under any circumstances, but the Civil War, with its preceding decades of white-hot partisan politics, was especially onerous. From all directions, Lincoln faced disparagement and defiance. He was often at odds with his generals, his Cabinet, his party, and a majority of the American people.
link
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY