Why does everyone believe in conspiracy theories nowadays?

I neither know nor care who bought it either. My point was that it's irrelevant to the Holocaust. Does it have entries pertinent to that event? If not, why bring it up? I didn't, you did. If JFK had such a view of Hitler, so what? Did he think the Holocaust was a hoax? Doesn't say. If true, it would lead me to reassess JFK's judgment, even if he was 28. But it would have no bearing on my view of the Holocaust, which it doesn't mention.

Face it. Hitler was a world class loser. If the voters had known he liked Hitler as a 28 year-old, would he have been elected? JFK, Politician and glamor boy, whose major tangible "accomplishment" in office was the Bay of Pigs. Otherwise rational people can hold erroneous views. Next you'll be tellin' us that RFK, Jr. is an anti-vaxer--which he is. Good lookin', articulate, lawyer, magic name, nutty as a fruit cake--and talking about a presidential run. I won't vote for him!

 

lol I've read it. A bit out of date, wouldn't you say. Your point is obscure. How do you think anything that English jurist had anything to say that is relevant to anything we've been talking about? What are you talking about?

You've got a lot of straight thinking to do. You seem to have a problem processing information. Scrambled eggs for brains?

 

Oh you forgot what you said only a few posts ago? shees....
Thats like out there! Something still in use today you claim is out of date.
Its the history of this country.

You seem to have cherry picking syndrome, and for some really strange reason like meagain seem to think its all about gov.

 

I call and raise you a GLARING contradiction that you need to explain.




HITLER'S JEWISH SOLDIERS: The Untold Story of Nazi Racial Laws and Men of Jewish Descent in the German Military
Bryan Mark Rigg, . . Univ. of Kansas, $29.95 (433pp) ISBN 978-0-7006-1178-2
What the Nazis called partial Jews, or mischlinge, served in the Wehrmacht during World War II, often joining to prove their loyalty and becoming decorated soldiers. Rigg, who received a B.A. from Yale in 1996, studied at Cambridge and currently teaches at the online American Military University, estimates their numbers to have been in the range of 150,000.

So then we have to conclude Hitler was gassin ma n pa on the other side of town and sonny boy was happily and proudly serving in Hitlers army, including some generals!

There is a serious problem here that you need to sort out! WOW!

 

What did it mean when Germany demanded the 'extermination' of the Jews? What was the process?

 

Isn't it perfect how, when answering a legitimate observation or suggestion about what might improve their analyzing processes, their response to you (and others like yourself) always descend to personal insults about intelligence or character? This community is chock full of these types.

You're too smart for these people. It's not a fair debate really - but mercifully for them, they don't realize it.

 

Tell it to the Brits. What do you think Parliamentary supremacy is all about? As a matter of fact, who was to be the ultimate judge of federal powers was left unsettled by our written Constitution. The Supreme Court stepped in and asserted the power of the courts to do so. Marbury v. Madison. Seemed reasonable. The Constitution is law. Interpreting law is what courts do. Nobody called John Marshall on it, and for all practical purposes, it became part of our unwrttten constitution.

The elected President of the U.S. carrying out his duties as chief executive.

The statement that courts (unelected officials) are somehow "intemediate" between the people and the legislature is nonsense. Otherwise, the legislature would be the final arbiter of the meaning of the Constitution, which it is not.

You are correct that the Constitution is fundamental law, and that the courts are best equipped to interpret it--which they have and do! And your point is?

And here you show your innocence of the realities of life. "The people" does not exist except conceptually, as a fiction. "The people", in practice, is the electorate, who act according to the provisions for electing our government officials. It is up to the courts to decide what the fundamental laws are--i.e., what the constitution means--and "the people" can abide by their decisions or implore their elected officials to amend the Constitution or impeach the judges.

You are correct that the Constitution is fundamental law, and that the courts are best equipped to interpret it--which they have and do! Discussing anything with you is like making sense of a word salad. What is your point?

Your antique language suggests you might be quoting something or someone. If so, whom? Again, what is your point?

Yes it is. What makes you think I don't understand it?

The system can only do so much. A nation divided cannot stand. (Our Framers didn't anticipate Russian trolls whispering sweet nothings into the ears of internet forum users.)

 

Like I said you have a lot of homework to do if you want to argue con law with me.

Let me first anticipate the collective groan of our readers as to why a decision handed down by the Supreme Court in 1803 is relevant in 2016 and even worthy of an "It's Debatable" topic. I have a compelling answer: The Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison committed an illegal takeover of the government and Constitution by granting itself the unilateral and unchecked power to declare the acts of Congress or President illegal and unenforceable. This may sound like an arcane point, but it is not. Marbury v. Madison has granted the Courts virtually dictatorial powers to controvert the will of the People and to act in the manner of a despot.

Marbury v. Madison a mistake?

...and it recently proven, Roe v Wade, contrary to the people, all hail the dictatorship!

 

Blackstone, an English jurist of the eighteenth century, had influence on the colonists of the time,and is "in use today" to interpret the meaning of historic documents. i asked you to explain how it related to my post.

 

your posts, to many misunderstandings, I have been pointing them out all along, feel free to go back and read the thread stream.

I know they are really pissed that someone invaded their private little propaganda, that was their job and the Russians horned in!

In fact it seems to me that was proven to be a false redd herring trump attack by the biden regime

 

The collective groan would be from those who flunked high school civics. It is relevant because it is the precedent on which judicial review is founded! For all practical purposes, it is part of our unwritten Constitution. You complaint that it was a usurpation of power is 220 years too late! Once again, and example of naive, impractical thinking.

 

You thought you were making a point by telling me the people is a fiction, and I quashed with far deeper research to prove you in fact are a fiction and even gave you a reference, what more could you ask. Why do you keep missing these points?

 

Oh?
So now you think we are in Britain do ya? LOL
There is no unwritten Constitution in the US.
nice tangent!

 

Because you can't communicate them?

 

you seem to think that unconstitutional law/court rulings like megain is a ok because it was a long time ago. NOT!

You list the case that established the court as a 9 person dictatorship! That was not the intention of the constitution.

I already told you that the government only obtains its LEGITIMATE authority through positive law in america. Positive law in america is WRITTEN! Black ink on white paper! If you are a brit I am sure that sounds very strange to you.

 

Sorry, but there is, for all practical purposes. Marbury v. Madison was a reasonable construction, and as you've said, it's the job of Courts to interpret law. Short of revolution or coup d'etat, how would you go about challenging the power of the Supreme Court to declare acts of Congress and the President unconstitutional? For further enlightenment, see
America's Unwritten Constitution: The Precedents and Principles We Live By | Department of Political Science
American Constitutionalism — Written, Unwritten, and Living - Harvard Law Review
Amazon.com
Realistically, there is no hope that the U.S. is going to scrap Marbury v. Madison and McCulloch v. Maryland and return to the early nineteenth or eighteenth centuries. If it did, it wouldn't last long. We might as well go back to powdered wigs.

 

Rigg is writing about the Mischlinge (mixed race)Germans--half to a quarter Jewish. Some did not know they were Jewish. Those who did led a marginal existence--accepted by neither gentiles nor Jews. Those who joined the armed forces wanted to prove themselves to gentiles and /or to avoid the concentration camps for themselves and their families. Some did not know about the death camps, and those who did wanted to keep themselves and their families out of them. Hitler was glad to use them, just as Putin is glad to use criminals--as cannon fodder. I don't think they're evidence that there was no Holocaust.

 

How so? They were not given the authority by the people or congress to create a judicial dictatorship.

 

Seriously, do you even bother to read and digest the links you post?

Admission that the government is operating outside the constitution and calling it the unwritten constitution is admission of despotism.