Slashdot Mirror
Learning About Constitutional Law With Star Wars
An anonymous reader writes: In an upcoming paper (PDF) for the Michigan Law Review, scholar Cass Sunstein draws on Star Wars to make a couple key points about how constitutional law evolves. He writes, "Human beings often see coherence and planned design when neither exists. This is so in movies, literature, history, economics, and psychoanalysis—and constitutional law. Contrary to the repeated claims of George Lucas, its principal author, the Star Wars series was hardly planned in advance; it involved a great deal of improvisation and surprise, even to Lucas himself. Serendipity and happenstance, sometimes in the forms of eruptions of new thinking, play a pervasive and overlooked role in the creative imagination, certainly in single-authored works, and even more in multi-authored ones extending over time. ... The misdescription appears to respond to a serious human need for sense-making and pattern-finding, but it is a significant obstacle to understanding and critical reflection. Whether Jedi or Sith, many authors of constitutional law are a lot like the author of Star Wars, disguising the essential nature of their own creative processes."
...from Ewoks: The Battle for Endor?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It could be worse, you could be trying to learn Constitutional law from the average elected official, especially the last few presidents.
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
I thought the political message of Star Wars was clear: a powerful executive gradually demonizes, marginalizes, ignores and then disbands a representative body, while using force to intimidate and even kill anyone who resists or speaks against the central government.
Now where could we find a parallel....hmmm...
It isn't like the partial law from Star Wars isn't based on the well documented Roman System of governance.
You know the idea that there was a Republic system of government with a constitutional rule that will grant someone emergancy full authority in times of war. Which was abused by Julius Caesar to allow him to create the Roman Empire. Or was it Senator Palpatine who created the Galactic empire?
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Sorry, I can't take seriously a paper on the development of constitutional law which starts with an analogy to Star Wars.
Neither can I. Just skimmed the article.
TL;DR: This is a rant/metaphor about Originalism. The author argues that both narratives and process of creating narratives have surprises. Constitutional law has many "I am your father" moments (yes, that's what the author in TFA calls them) when previous information in a narrative/legal principle is reinterpreted. But Originalism (according to TFA) wants to claim that these narrative/legal surprises were ALL planned and intended by George Lucas/the Founders all along. But of course, they weren't -- both Lucas and the Supreme Court have made up new stuff as necessary. Thus, Originalism is stupid. QED.
It's a really drawn-out argument to make a really simple (and not very nuanced) point. Beyond simply pointing out that Lucas -- like any author -- changes his mind and evolves a narrative dynamically as part of the writing process, I don't really get why any of the further Star Wars details are necessary (and aren't even very interesting or entertaining).
Sorry, I can't take seriously a paper on the development of constitutional law which starts with an analogy to Star Wars.
Why not? The point seems to be that a people's view of their constitution is a myth-making process. This idea is of course anathema to Americans, although clearly long-held interpretations of the US Constitution certainly color what we see as the "plain meaning" of the document.
But you can see see this consensus myth thing clearly over in Britain, which doesn't have a written constitution. That doesn't mean they don't have a constitution; it's in what nearly everyone agrees traditionally can or cannot be done. The Queen can't veto a law by withholding her assent, because it's just not done.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Does Cass Sunstein write Vogon poetry too?
Would you rather have it based on the militaristic approach of Star Trek, disguised as a perfect/harmonic society?
Well the bad guys were... Being that it was created 32 years after World War 2.
The Nazis are still considered the group of people who are at their worst, and could have won.
Sure we had Communists and Terrorist but they are seen as less of a Evil or Major Threat.
The Terrorists are considered an Evil group. However they are are just a bunch of bullies, who haven't (compared to the military actions in the past) gained much foothold.
The Communists were less Evil, but more a solid threat, the Soviets had taken control of many countries, and having a Nuclear Arsenal as well made them really scarry.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
All you need to know about constitutional law is in Episode 3. A henious enough event can be exploited to the point where you can essentially invalidate an entire constitution and, instead of condemnation, you will hear only cheering.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Perhaps protection of commercial advertising is constitutional law's The Phantom Menace.
Sorry, I can't take seriously a paper on the development of constitutional law which starts with an analogy to Star Wars.
I don't blame you, but (just by skimming it) the thesis base its used analogy on Star Wars as a way to criticize... (unplanned) "non-sense"!
Antisthenes: "Wisdom begins by examining the words/names." - excuse my English, i am (slightly...) better with my Greek!
If all you see of that universe is the military, it does kinda look that way.
The Communists were less Evil...
Tens of millions of Chinese & Russians along with other eastern European & Asian countries might disagree. I wonder why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
Of course it is not all thought out!
That is why we have Amendments and the Supreme Court.
The other side of the coin is "living document" where we change the meaning of the words to fit the current times.
I am much more in favor of using the tools given to us to change the Constitution vrs changing it's meaning based on current interpretation.
That "precedence" concept of common law should not apply to the Constitution, which is not "written in stone" but should be difficult to change to avoid repeats of Prohibition. The fact that Prohibition is one of the few "flip flops" in the Constitution shows that it works pretty well.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
How on earth did this get enough votes to make it into the Slashdot pool... Our founding fathers and George Lucas being compared?
Where it's not very deep, Even Slashdot isn't usually this shallow.... Or is it?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"less" being the operative word.
Nobody said they weren't evil. I'm not even sure I agree on the "less", although american history education certainly villain-izes the nazis more than the commies.
And the best quote from the Ars comment section was "Darth Vader" is pretty much a Germanic version of "Dark Father"... so for all of Lucas's failings, that " I am your father" moment that the paper is largely based on was likely not one of the serendipitous ones that the paper hopes it to be.
"Han shot first", OTOH, we see cropping up in law ALL THE TIME.
He didn't need no constitutional law.
I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
...could be worse still: Slashdot could be teaching Constitutional Law, which means you'd start with a car analogy.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
TBH, I don't even get why the TFA author's idea was necessary. The US Constitution was built out of a long series of debates, compromises, and not a little effort towards future-proofing (and let's be honest, idiot-proofing). That, and they included mechanisms to modify it as needed.
Sure, the process was arduous and it involved a lot of potential inclusions that would quite frankly scare many folks today. That said, once finalized and ratified, it's in place and should be treated as the original document. If you (or anyone) want it changed, then use the mechanisms included to do just that. We've managed to do so for a couple of centuries now without violating the thing, so why get all creative about it now?
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
The Terrorists are considered an Evil group. However they are are just a bunch of bullies, who haven't (compared to the military actions in the past) gained much foothold.
The Communists were less Evil, but more a solid threat, the Soviets had taken control of many countries, and having a Nuclear Arsenal as well made them really scarry.
There is some disagreement about those people being evil, especially the communists. One could easily say that the capitalists are the greater evil, especially the owners big corporations, because they pollute the Earth, are utterly greedy, etc and have no concern for the distribution of resources among those who need them. The CIA, on behalf of a capitalist state, participated in coups d'état in various countries, the US invaded Nicaragua, Panama, Hawaii, just to name a few countries. Thus, capitalism is evil.
About the terrorists, I can say that the main distinction between a terrorist group and a state is that other countries recognizes the occupation of territory by a state, but not by a terrorist group, no matter the opinion of the people in the occupied territories.
The Nazis, on the other hand, are held as the embodiment of evil, almost unanimously.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
The 17th Amendment was a response to some seriously corrupt shenanigans, but I'm not sure it was the right response.
The worst things that have happened to our federal system have come through the 14th, 16th, and 17th Amendments.
Individual Americans were never supposed to have a direct relationship with the Federal government; it was formed as a union of states, not of people.
I don't know how to fix this, but I think it should be fixed.
I don't agree with Lord Vader, but I support the Stormtroopers.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Dude, that's like saying Canada is a militaristic society - because your entire gained knowledge of Canada involved hanging around the bridge of a Canadian warship, with the occasional excursion to foreign shores.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Yeah, because the liberal majority here on slashdot just loves the evolving constitution... like the Citizens United ruling.
why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
They were ever so slightly less bad than the Nazis.
Well, maybe, we're not really all that sure. But they won the Second World War for us so we give them the benefit of the doubt.
Isn't it in their nature to resist change, isn't the very definition of a conservative one who resists change? I believe everyone should live according to their nature.
Conservatives should do their thing, and if they find the world changing around them too rapidly, they should construct a mountain of bullshit and live safely on top of Bullshit Mountain.
Progressives and other communist sympathizer should live according to their nature as well, their family should get a fraction of resources equivalent to the world population (1 / 7 billion). Ideally that fraction includes a small soap box to stand up on to pontificate their chosen lifestyle. They can give everyone passing them by on the street the stink eye. Which is according to their nature and therefor the most direct route to True Happiness.
We run into troubles when one side controls police powers and uses that force to drag the opposing side to some terrible point in between (this is the math of vectors). One solution is to have color coded uniforms. One side can wear baby blue uniforms, the other can wear pink uniforms. The police force would only be permitted to act against people wearing the same color. Two opposing societies that are peaceful because we silently ignore one another. This is what is known as a social armistice.
I find your lack of faith disturbing.
The less is that a person with enough money and influence can force everyone to accept something obviously false, like Han shooting first or dollars having more rights than citizens.
Obviously No True Scots' constitution would have evolved that way.
The other side of the coin is "living document" where we change the meaning of the words to fit the current times.
I am much more in favor of using the tools given to us to change the Constitution vrs changing it's meaning based on current interpretation.
That's exactly the problem. Nobody wants to amend the Constitution, they want to "interpret" it, as if the meaning of it weren't clear enough as is. You mentioned Prohibition, which I think is one of the best examples. Nobody so far has been able to explain to me why we had to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but the same thing is not necessary for any other drug. The entire war on drugs is an unconstitutional sham.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
They're seen as being less competent. The Nazis were scary because they were both evil and effective.
I wonder why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
They don't.
But here's a hint for you. The "Communists" in those countries also claimed to be Democratic, Republics, and a lot more.
Might be they weren't a Holy Roman Empire either.
Irony, captcha is fascism.
They made their claims too, BTW.
...could be worse still: Slashdot could be teaching Constitutional Law, which means you'd start with a car analogy.
Unfortunately, someone ripped out all the wire for the copper, jacked the stereo, and left the car up on blocks with no wheels.
The Queen can't veto a law by withholding her assent, because it's just not done.
And, just to remind her of this, there is a statue of Oliver Cromwell just outside the house of Commons.
Watch this Heartland Institute video
No, there's more! Like all those people running around in spandex with TI scientific calculators, feeling bad about vapourizing a planet after struggling with their mixed feelings regarding the "do not interfere" stupid federation rule... Let's say it, ST is boring as looking at a snail go through your backyard's deck if anything. /SARCASM
If you think about it a bit more, ST is kind of a metaphor for US interventionism, AKA the Monroe Doctrine: Let's all look as if we were doing something on behalf of every living being, while making profit at it and don't ever think of all the sentient beings we've killed in between.
The Communists were less Evil, but more a solid threat, the Soviets had taken control of many countries, and having a Nuclear Arsenal as well made them really scarry.
The reason communists get a pass is because most of the media and the current president have so much common cause with Marxism.
It only says bear arms. It doesn't specify which kind of bear arms. Grizzly, polar, you name it; its arms are up for grabs!
Cass Sunstein holds the laughable position that the second amendment is to ensure the government can be armed. Any of his other musings are probably similarly disconnected from reality.
I don't know how to fix this, but I think it should be fixed.
Washington is simply incapable of fixing itself. The only way to put the genie back in the bottle is an Article 5 convention of the states. That would over rule congress, the president, and SCOTUS. Mark Levin wrote a book about this called "The Liberty Amendments". Well researched and highly recommended. Levin makes Sunstein look like a kindergartener.
One can argue that the communists were more evil, but the Nazi threat was more immediate.
Well, Star Wars *is* a global phenomenon and a staple of US culture loved and adored by millions across the globe. So, now that you draw the comparison to the founding fathers, in our modern times George Lucas has probably been more significant to most people than the founding fathers have.
Nobody so far has been able to explain to me why we had to pass a constitutional amendment to outlaw alcohol, but the same thing is not necessary for any other drug.
Because the Constitution "changed" (at least in its interpretation) in 1937. Long story short: from 1789 to 1937, the Supreme Court believed that enumerated powers existed, thus putting rather restrictive and fundamental limits on the powers of the federal government.
For some reason in 1937, one of the justices on the Supreme Court switched sides. And ever since, the Supreme Court has basically interpreted certain sections of the Constitution (e.g., "interstate commerce," "general welfare," etc.) to mean "the federal government can do anything any state or local government can do."
Now, whether this shift was due to FDR threatening to pack SCOTUS with his cronies or whether Owen Roberts just changed his mind for some other reason, it happened. And once voters saw the effects -- like getting benefits from Social Security, Medicare, more sweeping Civil Rights legislation possible, etc. -- they kept endorsing the idea that the enumerated powers shouldn't matter.
So yeah, before 1937, federal power was limited (though it should be noted that some previous SCOTUS decisions had interpreted various enumerated powers more or less broadly). After 1937, there is no effective distinction between what the federal vs. more local governments can do.
The Monroe Doctrine is dead. You're thinking the US as the world's police force and try to feel good about ourselves while we kill brown people (and Obama is trying to get us out of that role too, see Syria and Ukraine).
Oh for Pete's sake... GEORGE LUCAS has had more significance than our founding fathers to the current generation?!?
What kind of history are they (not) teaching in public schools these days? If what you say is true, this is sad. It means we are abandoning our founding principles and putting principles in place from fictional stories, and between Star Wars, The Hunger Games and the like we get our ideas of government? Lord help us.
I dare say that MOST of us are way more impacted by our founders than by Star Wars, what's lacking is understanding of what that impact actually is because we haven't learned our history.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The Nazis, on the other hand, are held as the embodiment of evil, almost unanimously.
Because the Communists won the PR war. Literally. When Stalin decided to denounce someone he called them Fascist.
It boggles the mind that any former Communist, an ideology that killed over 60 million people can be accepted just fine today and any former Nazi is forever considered the worst creature to have walked the Earth.
This is not to cry over some perceived unfairness to the Nazi, but rather to stand astounded that all Communists aren't being rounded up today with the same fervor. You claim to want justice for totalitarian perpetrators of genocide? Great, just don't pick and choose.
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Thank you, it was early morning and I couldn't think of the actual word.
I call it the Humpty Dumpty argument:
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’
’The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
’The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
Only because we supplied them with the war materiel to do so. 2,000 locomotives, 600,000 trucks, untold tons of food and medicine etc. etc. etc.
The Russians *started* WWII when they and their Nazi allies invaded Poland.
why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
They were ever so slightly less bad than the Nazis.
...
When communists murder people, it's treated more like an industrial accident than a crime. At least by some people.
Villainized, sure.
But the hard facts are Communists make the Nazi's look like punters.
Mao: 70 Million
Pol Pot: 3 Million
North Korea: 1.5 Million
Stalin/Russia: 61 Million
Nazi's? 20 million in the various Concentration Camps and starvation campaigns. They do get "points" for being so efficient and doing it in such a short time I guess.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
TBH, I don't even get why the TFA author's idea was necessary. The US Constitution was built out of a long series of debates, compromises, and not a little effort towards future-proofing (and let's be honest, idiot-proofing). That, and they included mechanisms to modify it as needed.
Sure, the process was arduous and it involved a lot of potential inclusions that would quite frankly scare many folks today. That said, once finalized and ratified, it's in place and should be treated as the original document. If you (or anyone) want it changed, then use the mechanisms included to do just that. We've managed to do so for a couple of centuries now without violating the thing, so why get all creative about it now?
The complaints: It's too hard to get 66% of Congress and 75% of the States to agree to change it, so politically it's just easier to get SCOTUS to allow the Federal government to do what is desired by "reinterpreting" the meaning you want into what was already written.
It's primarily a complaint by those in favor of Big Government; though many in favor of Small Government have turned to it as well in order to try to roll back the Progressive movements of the last 100 years. So both sides are now guilty of it.
There's a balance to be struck between the two positions; though I do favor the Originalism position more and give more weight to it. There's a lot to be learned from history and Originalism forces you to look back at history, learn from it, and apply it to today. The "Living Document" position does not, and sets up the repetition of history as a result since they ignore history, ignore lessons learned from history, and just try to do their own thing.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
No doubt humans are great at seeing and inventing patterns, its built in our brains at a deep level, for good and for ill. Certainly this ability plays a significant role in creativity. There's a missing bit here though, in that we build a pattern that is in some sense deeply meaningful. "Luke, I am your Uncle, " would have made as much sense and filled in pretty much all the similar spots, but doesn't have the same punch.
When the courts go to try and understand a new, real life situation against the background of the history of judicial judgement, there is a part of this that is just inspired. But there is a huge part that is research and questioning and trying to bring the pattern into a meaningful and consistent whole, something that is an expression of certain foundational opinions and reasoned principles. Although there is a connection here, the article seems to suggest that the pattern we devise is much more arbitrary than I think it really is. "Making up patterns where none exist" would imply that we can end up anywhere. I don't think that is the case.
Peace, or Not?
This is not to cry over some perceived unfairness to the Nazi, but rather to stand astounded that all Communists aren't being rounded up today with the same fervor. You claim to want justice for totalitarian perpetrators of genocide? Great, just don't pick and choose.
Not all Communists are genocidal, only their leaders. In the same way, not all Nazis deserved to go on trial (IFAIK, 10% went), nor the ones who faced trial should ben condemned, (again, AFAIK, 10% were). I've heard people say that it is a shame that it went that way and that all Nazis should have been prosecuted and hung. However most of then had no say on the fate of the inmates of concentration camps, nor had important roles in the party, nor have anything to do with the Nazi party besides being affiliated. Heck, Oskar Schindler was a Nazi.
Setting aside the numbers, did you know that Brazil is a genocidal country? The Brazilian government is building a barrage that will flood the lands of some Indian tribes, and is yet to provide a territory for such people to live. But what does the world do? Nothing, because it's a capitalist country and an ally to EU and US.
Linux is for people who don't mind RTFM.
they were voted into power, by folks who had a democratic, constitutionally chartered government. Anytime a fictional work needs to show the evil of people giving over to "the dark side", either out of fear, demoralizing shame, or for some other reason, "The Nazis" provide a good model to emulate. Authors, screenwriters, and other artists are who understand this history can be forgiven for copying the concept. The excesses of Communism, while often "evil" are not nearly as interesting, from a creative point of view.
The USA is only 4X older than me...perspective
You're correct - but the problem is that they made it too difficult to modify the Constitution as necessary to keep up. Over time, the federal government (and both political parties) have increasingly turned to creative interpretation rather than amendment when they want to do something that would likely run afoul of the original intent and text.
Consider the internal improvements bill of 1817 (also known as the Bonus Bill of 1817). It would have established a fund for a system of internal improvements (roads, canals, etc), and was passed by both houses of Congress. President James Madison ("the Father of the Constitution") liked the idea, but he vetoed it, because he stated that the Constitution didn't grant Congress the power to do that. He instead suggested that a constitutional amendment would be necessary.
So let me ask - what amendment allowed Congress to fund internal improvements? There isn't one. Do we do it anyway? Absolutely. So how does that work? Well, Madison's successor James Monroe came along and said "Well, the Constitution won't let you set up a SYSTEM of improvements, but you can instead fund them one at a time."
Over time, it's gotten to be more like that. Instead of passing more amendments, we instead use other measures and interpretations. The Federal Government can't set the legal drinking age to 21, but it sure can threaten to withhold highway funds from any state that doesn't meet that. Now, why is this necessarily a bad thing? In my mind, it's bad because it sets the precedent that the Constitution is something to be routed around, rather than to be obeyed, and leads quite naturally to some of the stuff like the civil liberties abuses we're seeing.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/17/...
http://www.theguardian.com/wor...
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
" One could easily say that the capitalists are the greater evil, especially the owners big corporations, because they pollute the Earth, are utterly greedy, etc and have no concern for the distribution of resources among those who need them."
Really?
Wow I guess you have not seen what the old USSR did in the areas that controlled as far as the environment, for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A....
Or the quality of air in China...
"and have no concern for the distribution of resources among those who need them."
Wow.. again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Yea... You need to read a lot more history.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Rome replaced its monarchy with a Republic early on. But several centuries later ambitious generals took over the republic with a neo-monarchy called the Imperium.
Nice attempt to move the goalposts.
The number includes those killed in the years between the Revolution and Stalin coming to power, and deaths after he left, which is why it says Stalin/Russia. But he owns the lion's share for the starvation and deaths cause by deportations, gulag, systematic political purges. etc.
I did not include deaths by war, soldiers take that risk.
And yes, the numbers swing wildly. The holocaust is estimated at 6 to 12 million. That is a lot of margin, and it exists for other events as well. The starvation events in China are estimated from 40 to 100 million, that is a big margin of error.
Then again, the Nazi's have killed anyone lately, but North Korea and China are still killing people today.
BTW, if the Nazi's were the National Socialist Party, are they communists?
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
This is the same man who proposed infiltrating and attacking any groups that dared think something of which his government didn't approve.
Although as a deeply-connected member of the Obama Administration, I'd have to agree that, at least when it comes to his own efforts at governance, "Human beings often see coherence and planned design when neither exists."
Anyone who's ever worked for George understands George himself was, however unconsciously, the model for both Darth Vader and the Emperor. Frightening but revealing that Sunstein would use this - a ruthless dictator who in truth has neither coherence nor a plan - as his template for constitutional government.
Intentions matter more so than just raw numbers. If you kill 10 people by accident, even negligence, that is generally considered as not being as bad as killing one person on purpose. The vast majority of deaths attributed to communist regimes come from incompetence and mismanagement resulting in mass famines.
Furthermore, the reason the Nazis are so hated is not because they killed a lot of people but because they targeted people based on racism and prejudice. Communists killed people they saw as threats (real or perceived) to their ideology and power, and not because of their race, religion or because they were disabled. Again, this makes a difference. Historically we don't have much of a problem with the state killing enemies of the state (how many people shed a tear when Osama Bin-Laden was executed by the Navy Seals?). Obviously the scale on which the communists executed people was far greater, and there's no way that those millions killed by Stalin were all legitimate enemies of the state but there is an emotional difference that exists here.
It should also be pointed out that comparing Nazi Germany to communism in general isn't really a genuine comparison. Communism in Stalinist Russia was very different from the later years of the Soviet Union after Khrushchev's de-Stalinisation. It was still a brutal, repressive, and totalitarian regime, but nothing like it was under Stalin, or what Germany was under Hitler. A more fair comparison would be communism to fascism in general, and so including Mussolini's Italy and Franco's Spain. Both of these regimes are considered bad in comparison to capitalist democracies by most, but neither is seen as the same sort of evil as Nazi Germany. That's because it isn't about being a brutal oppressive regime or how many people you have killed (do you count the 465,000–2,500,000 civilian dead during the Vietnam War against the USA?). No, the reason the Nazi's have a special dark place in history is because they engaged in genocide and because they invented a whole, gruesome, machinery of death to accomplish that goal.
We interpret things routinely. You will read this and try to figure out what I tried to say, respond to it and I will then post that you misinterpreted everything I wrote and start a flame warâ¦
The same is true with law, the defendant and the claimant interpret the law to be in their favor, the judge adjudicates the case based on his interpretation of what the law says and what was demonstrated by each party.
Some parts of the law are straightforward, if after a violent incident between people there is a dead body, you can be sure it is homicide. Then you can argue whether it was manslaughter (an accident) or first degree murder (intentional), depending on who's paying you.
Now, the right to bear arms... It is not clear at all. Does it include automatic assault weapons? How about howitzers? Switchblades? Nuclear warheads? It does NOT enumerate what kind of arms and thus, it is quite open to interpretation.
Be very, very careful what you put into that head, because you will never, ever get it out. - Cardinal Wolsey
Germany invaded Poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany...and, after a little while, the Soviets moved into Poland. What they started in WWII was the Winter War with Finland.
Also, the reason the Soviets were allied with Germany was that their negotiations with France and Britain foundered, the British envoy in particular having about enough authority to ask for a pee break. Had France and Britain been actually interested in a Soviet alliance, they likely would have had one (I'm not guaranteeing that, since there were some conflicts that might not have been negotiated away).
When Germany invaded the Soviet Union, they ended up legitimizing Soviet rule. Let me repeat that: they convinced the population that Stalin was the lesser of two evils. That's a pretty impressive feat.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I think some of the Nazi fascination comes from their very successful PR as badasses, as well as their application of modern industrial techniques to mass murder.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
I wonder why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
Because they lost and are no longer the major threat in the world. Rose colored glasses and such...
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen