Least we forget, March 1933: The Enabling Act becomes law in Germany

The rise of nationalism in Europe is not a good sign.
Why? They aren’t allowed to want to make their own country the best it can be? The best thing they could all do is get the fuck out of the EU and focus on their own people. Just like the US.

Deport the illegals and focus on being Italian or French or whatever. They don’t owe those fucking people anything.
 
In March of 1933, the Enabling act was passed in soon to be NAZI Germany, Give the Chief Executive the power to enforce his own laws without checks and balances.

6 Months later Germany was a one party nation.

And you know what happened after that.

The so-called supreme court has just started us down the same path.

Is the world ready for the next Reich?

How is the court sending regulations back to the congress to pass or not going to make a dictator?
 
Why? They aren’t allowed to want to make their own country the best it can be? The best thing they could all do is get the fuck out of the EU and focus on their own people. Just like the US.

Deport the illegals and focus on being Italian or French or whatever. They don’t owe those fucking people anything.
get down to brass tacks----let's define 'nationalism' ----OK---
are the people of the USA overly NATIONALISTIC to the point
that minorities are oppressed? How about England? France?
Germany? Iran? Saudi arabia? China? Turkey?
 
get down to brass tacks----let's define 'nationalism' ----OK---
are the people of the USA overly NATIONALISTIC to the point
that minorities are oppressed? How about England? France?
Germany? Iran? Saudi arabia? China? Turkey?
Minorities? You mean illegals? They should be deported and sent back home.
 
You moron if it wasnt for the courts in Germany, Hitler would have never existed. End of story.
As far as Jackson goes, she has the right to her professional opinion, which I happen to disagree with. Unlike you morons, we dont call people fake dems or DINO's if they do something we disagree with. You're a moron and a hypocrite.
Code:
~~~
What is not mentioned or s
[QUOTE="IM2, post: 34793162, member: 53913"]
Why do you fascists continue trying to call people names?

And what you said about Jackson was disingenuous.

[HEADING=2]Ketanji Brown Jackson Joins Conservative Justices in Upending Hundreds of January 6 Cases[/HEADING]

Ketanji Brown Jackson, the latter of whom wrote a concurring opinion urging the government to keep criminal laws constrained to their actual text.

As Reason's Jacob Sullum [URL='https://reason.com/2024/06/28/scotus-rejects-a-legal-interpretation-underlying-capitol-riot-charges/']outlines[/URL], the Supreme Court's decision centered around Joseph Fischer, a former Pennsylvania police officer who was charged with several offenses related to his conduct at the Capitol riot. According to the government, that lawlessness included, among other things, that he "forcibly assaulted a federal officer, entered and remained in a restricted building, and engaged in disorderly and disruptive conduct in the Capitol."

But prosecutors tacked on another charge using the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which criminalizes "alter[ing], destroy[ing], mutilat[ing], or conceal[ing] a record, document, or other object, or attempt[ing] to do so, with the intent to impair the object's integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding," or, per the following provision, "otherwise obstruct[ing], influenc[ing], or imped[ing] any official proceeding." Those convicted face up to 20 years in prison.

Fischer challenged that charge, arguing that the statute as written requires the alleged obstruction in question be tied to the impairment of records, documents, or objects, which would not apply to him. The federal judge who initially evaluated Fischer's petition sided with him; a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed that; and the Supreme Court reversed the reversal.

That Justice Jackson sided with Fischer shouldn't, in theory, come as a surprise. She is the only former public defender on the current Court; in the judiciary broadly, you are far more likely to find former prosecutors on the bench. So it stands to reason that she understands first-hand the downsides of government getting creative with criminal statutes, as prosecutors sometimes do.

[URL unfurl="true"]https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ketanji-brown-jackson-joins-conservative-justices-in-upending-hundreds-of-january-6-cases/ar-BB1p5c00[/URL]

Do not take this as Brown-Jackson siding wth insurrectionists.
[/QUOTE]
~~~
What are you spouting about? Judge Ketanji Jackson is the youngest and new addition to SCOTUS therefore is considered a Junior at the court.
Nothing said was racist. The fact that the madam justice broke from the Democrat mantra and voted her conscience is what is necessary in today's jurisprudence.
 
In March of 1933, the Enabling act was passed in soon to be NAZI Germany, Give the Chief Executive the power to enforce his own laws without checks and balances.

6 Months later Germany was a one party nation.

And you know what happened after that.

The so-called supreme court has just started us down the same path.

Is the world ready for the next Reich?

~~~~~~
Prior to the "Enabling Act of 1933, "Germans voted in an atmosphere of extreme voter intimidation perpetrated by the Nazi Sturmabteilung (SA) militia. Contrary to popular belief, Hitler did not win an outright majority in the Reichstag as the majority of Germans did not vote for the Nazi Party.[9] The election was a setback for the Nazis; however, it was insufficient in stopping the ratification of the Enabling Act. In order to guarantee its passage, the Nazis implemented a strategy of coercion, bribery, and manipulation. Hitler removed any remaining political obstacles so his coalition of conservatives, nationalists, and Nazis could begin building the Nazi dictatorship".
 
~~~~~~
The same people attending the rally at Madison Square Garden were Democrats and some KKK followers.
Thankfully it took the N.Y., Mafia to break them up.

**********​

Which rally? The one in 1933 or the one in 1939? They were polar opposites.

I didn't know there were other rallies at Madison Square Garden.

The Bund actually began to have some success; leaders and lawmakers across the country worried as the ranks swelled to 25,000. Much like all fascist uprisings, strong ties to pseudo-populism made it a lot more palatable to white working class people.
 
Last edited:
Wasn’t nationalist as much as it was fascism.

Washington and Jefferson were nationalist for example, their ideas help bring about freedom to many nations. It’s leftist fascist and bigots that lead to death and poverty

It was populism....

The Bund actually began to have some success; leaders and lawmakers across the country worried as the ranks swelled to 25,000. Much like all fascist uprisings, strong ties to pseudo-populism made it a lot more palatable to white working class people.
 
It was populism....

The Bund actually began to have some success; leaders and lawmakers across the country worried as the ranks swelled to 25,000. Much like all fascist uprisings, strong ties to pseudo-populism made it a lot more palatable to white working class people.
Nope they were fascist.
 
Which rally? The one in 1933 or the one in 1939? They were polar opposites.

I didn't know there were other rallies at Madison Square Garden.

The Bund actually began to have some success; leaders and lawmakers across the country worried as the ranks swelled to 25,000. Much like all fascist uprisings, strong ties to pseudo-populism made it a lot more palatable to white working class people.
in both cases there was some presence of both poles. The 1933
jewish galvanized rally saw some opposition but was largely
ignored thruout the metropolitan area and the country. The 1939 islamo-nazi galvanized event saw some opposition. It,
too, had little effect on the general population. Jews stayed
Jews, Bund stayed Bund, In the war period and post war Bund forgot it ever existed.
 

Forum List

Back
Top