Would Hitler have favored the 14th amendment?

[DCal430]

The 14th Amendment protects people RIGHTS from being trampled all over by the states. People should realize without the 14th amendment, many of the rights we hold dear could be taken away from us by our states.

Rights such as:
From of Religion (Yes, without the 14th states could set up State Religions, and ban others)
Women's Freedom of Choice
Gun Right's (Yep, without the 14th states could take your guns away)
The list goes on and on.

This was needed because the states had a history of trampling on the peoples rights.

 

[Malfeas]

Your schizophrenia is getting worse. Seek medical help soon.

 

[cybrsage]

You are a fool. Read history before you make idiotic statements like the above.

link

Habeas corpus' /ˈheɪbiəs ˈkɔrpəs/, Latin for "you [shall] have the body," is the name of a legal action or writ by means of which detainees can seek relief from unlawful imprisonment. The Suspension Clause of the United States Constitution specifically included the English common law procedure in Article One, Section 9, clause 2, which demands that "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States

Unless you are trying to claim the US Civil War was not a rebellion, you are wrong to imply Lincoln did not have the legal power to suspend it.

There was also no declaration of war because it was a rebellion. What nation would he have requested a declaration of war against?

The treasury money is a little unclear whether he could do it or not. Can you get a lot more specific on this point?

 

[NoStateofMind]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States

Unless you are trying to claim the US Civil War was not a rebellion, you are wrong to imply Lincoln did not have the legal power to suspend it.

There was also no declaration of war because it was a rebellion. What nation would he have requested a declaration of war against?

The treasury money is a little unclear whether he could do it or not. Can you get a lot more specific on this point?

The president, on his own, does not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. He by his own orders (like that of Hitler with Gestapo) rounded up "sympathizers" (Jews) and those against the union (Third Reich) and imprisoned them without trial. This was so outrageous that even the Chief Justice saw fit to revoke Lincolns declaration. Lincolns response? He ignored it. Not too much a stretch to claim military dictatorship during this dark period in American history. So unless you are trying to justify Hitlers and Lincolns actions you might want to look into separation of powers and the reason for them.

 

[Abraxas]

The president, on his own, does not have the authority to suspend habeas corpus. He by his own orders (like that of Hitler with Gestapo) rounded up "sympathizers" (Jews) and those against the union (Third Reich) and imprisoned them without trial. This was so outrageous that even the Chief Justice saw fit to revoke Lincolns declaration. Lincolns response? He ignored it. Not too much a stretch to claim military dictatorship during this dark period in American history. So unless you are trying to justify Hitlers and Lincolns actions you might want to look into separation of powers and the reason for them.

No, but what is too much of a stretch is to compare the limited power exercised by Lincoln for brief periods of time to reign in an armed rebellion against the government that threatened to rip the nation apart to those used by Hitler, who used the powers proactively to cause a crisis, never relinquished the power, and use them to commit acts of genocide and aggression against not only neighboring countries but his own people. Lincoln is justified in that his actions kept the US together, in that it had the result, if not intent, of ending slavery, and in that when the crisis passed all of the powers he claimed were immediately turned back over; Hitler can claim none of this.That you consider what Lincoln did to be the equal of what Hitler, or even in the same timezone, did is a pretty solid indicator that your brain has gone so far up your ass as to reach your stomach and be digested.

 

[Anarchist420]

Unless you are trying to claim the US Civil War was not a rebellion, you are wrong to imply Lincoln did not have the legal power to suspend it.

There was also no declaration of war because it was a rebellion. What nation would he have requested a declaration of war against?

The treasury money is a little unclear whether he could do it or not. Can you get a lot more specific on this point?

congress did not appropriate the money for him to trick the confederates into firing on fort sumpter which was what started the war. The "civil war" was not a rebellion by the South because they were being invaded after they had peaceably declared independence. The CSA offered to pay the US govt for all the property left behind by the latter.

No, but what is too much of a stretch is to compare the limited power exercised by Lincoln for brief periods of time to reign in an armed rebellion against the government that threatened to rip the nation apart to those used by Hitler, who used the powers proactively to cause a crisis, never relinquished the power, and use them to commit acts of genocide and aggression against not only neighboring countries but his own people. Lincoln is justified in that his actions kept the US together, in that it had the result, if not intent, of ending slavery, and in that when the crisis passed all of the powers he claimed were immediately turned back over; Hitler can claim none of this.That you consider what Lincoln did to be the equal of what Hitler, or even in the same timezone, did is a pretty solid indicator that your brain has gone so far up your ass as to reach your stomach and be digested.

if I believed in reincarnation, I'd have to say that hitler was Lincoln reincarnated.

The south did not rebel, they didn't want to continue to pay the tariffs which subsidized public works projects in the north. Lincoln didn't need to have innocent people murdered and arrested just to keep an institution designed by men together. He approved of shermans's scorched earth and total war policies (which the south never used) FFS.

 

[werepossum]

Ought to be a law that before one asks What would Hitler do/think/say about X, one must first ask How would World War II have been different if Eleanor Roosevelt had been able to fly?

 

[NoStateofMind]

No, but what is too much of a stretch is to compare the limited power exercised by Lincoln for brief periods of time to reign in an armed rebellion against the government that threatened to rip the nation apart to those used by Hitler, who used the powers proactively to cause a crisis, never relinquished the power, and use them to commit acts of genocide and aggression against not only neighboring countries but his own people. Lincoln is justified in that his actions kept the US together, in that it had the result, if not intent, of ending slavery, and in that when the crisis passed all of the powers he claimed were immediately turned back over; Hitler can claim none of this.That you consider what Lincoln did to be the equal of what Hitler, or even in the same timezone, did is a pretty solid indicator that your brain has gone so far up your ass as to reach your stomach and be digested.

Where does the Constitution allow for a president to exert this type of power in any limited scope or time frame? It doesn't. The steps taken by Lincoln are in line with Hitler no matter the how limited. Except it wasn't six million Jews that died, nope, just six hundred thousand Americans. The similarities are there whether you like it or not. Was he justified? In my opinion no. Lincoln could give a rats ass about slavery and he made that no secret.

"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause."

Link

So at any cost to save the Union. That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy doesn't it you? (being facetious here)

Did the south have the right to secede from the tyranny of Lincolns military dictatorship? Our founders thought so.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This might not be law. But it sure shows you their mindset.

 

[Brainonska511]

Where does the Constitution allow for a president to exert this type of power in any limited scope or time frame? It doesn't. The steps taken by Lincoln are in line with Hitler no matter the how limited. Except it wasn't six million Jews that died, nope, just six hundred thousand Americans. The similarities are there whether you like it or not. Was he justified? In my opinion no. Lincoln could give a rats ass about slavery and he made that no secret.

600,000 Americans were not slaughtered systematically; a portion of the country rose up in armed rebellion.

 

[Anarchist420]

600,000 Americans were not slaughtered systematically; a portion of the country rose up in armed rebellion.

why would the south have rebelled if they were trying to secede? Hint: it doesn't make sense for someone to secede then to attack what it seceded from. Also, the 600k Americans pcsurgeon was referring to were civilians (emphasis added). It's not right to murder 600k civilians under any circumstances.

 

[Brainonska511]

why would the south have rebelled if they were trying to secede? Hint: it doesn't make sense for someone to secede then to attack what it seceded from. Also, the 600k Americans pcsurgeon was referring to were civilians (emphasis added). It's not right to murder 600k civilians under any circumstances.

Talk about being WRONG.

"The war produced about 1,030,000 casualties (3% of the population), including about 620,000 soldier deaths—two-thirds by disease, and 50,000 civilians"

"Hostilities began on April 12, 1861, when Confederate forces fired on a U.S. military installation at Fort Sumter in South Carolina"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Civil_War