It wouldn't be accurate to characterize Hitler's rise to power as occurring because "hardly anybody objected." Hitler became a compromise chancellor in early 1933 after no one succeeded in gaining a majority of votes in parliament. He used the position of chancellor (and the burning of the Reichstag) to consolidate further power. After that he used his control of the police as well as violence and intimidation to extend his power, culminating in a law giving his cabinet the right to enact laws without parliamentary approval, and effectively making Hitler dictator.Over the course of time the inadvisability of overtly objecting to the Hitler regime became evident, and so if in later years it seemed as if Hitler had most Germans' enthusiastic support, especially after Germany's economic revitalization after 1935 and the successes in the early years of WWII, it doesn't mean that not enough Germans opposed his rise to power. The concerns raised during his early political years were in the end completely borne out and then some. We in America must heed Santayana at this critical time, but now I'm drifting off into the Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread, so I'll stop.But I can't resist saying a little more about WWII. The blame for the totality of German defeat and the destruction of Germany is often blamed on the allied insistence on unconditional surrender. Understanding that surrender meant war crime trials for all top ranking Nazis and many lower level party members, almost all levels of German leadership saw no course but to fight on to the very end, hoping for allied discouragement if there should be a major German military success, or for new military technologies to come on line that could change the course of the war (aircraft, bombs and rockets), making it possible to end the war with Germany maintaining autonomy and retaining some its territorial gains.But that would have been a horrible conclusion because it would have left Jews in German territory at the mercy of the concentration camps. News of the extermination camps had begun leaking out of Germany since early in the war, but they hadn't been much believed and were probably not given much credit when the allies made their demand for unconditional surrender. Whatever instincts drove this demand, they were very good ones.--Percy

Because they amended the constitution.

And he could "use his position" because the people tacitly agreed to what he was doing - i.e. they didn't object.

An amendment to the constitution that allowed them to ignore the constitution. The constitution didn't stop them from doing that, which is what I've been saying. The people could have hypothetically stopped them from doing it but they didn't.

I guess it doesn't matter if you want to continue believing something wrong about German history in a thread about gun control, but if you want to make a point about how a constitution is not a constraint on government you would be better served to provide examples that are actually true. If you don't then people might conclude that your views are as mistaken as your history.--Percy

Yea propaganda man, it still works today. You name something like estate tax as death tax if you want the public against it, or if you want to pass total big brother spying you dont name it that but something like the patriot act.The vast majority of voters everywhere are poorly informed or misinformed or not informed at all.

The US Constitution has explicit provisions for amending, and even the federal legislature in concert with the president do not have sufficient constitutional power to amend the constitution.We can contrast that to the situation in some other countries, where the legislature can amend the constitution, or where the actual rights of persons and powers of the government are as described in a legislative document and there is no actual constitution separate from state law.You do have a point that there are reasons why governments do not just go rogue and ignore the whole thing, but comparing the US to the situation that existed in Germany at the time of world war II fails because of the details that have been pointed out. I am not sure why you are insisting on that particular example rather than one of the others one your list of suspensions.I am also sure that there are situations where constitutional provisions were ignored and a leader simply made up his own rules contrary to what the constitution says. Arguably that would apply to Abraham Lincoln's suspension of Habeas Corpus during the civil war. But your Germany example does not make your point.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm trying to find ways in which we can agree. Is "they didn't object" a bit of hyperbole? If so then I have no objections. I just wanted to make clear that Hitler's rise to power was not tacitly accepted by the German people. This is from the New York Times from March 5, 1933:

quote:

---

GERMAN VOTE ENDS ONE-SIDED CAMPAIGN

---

Hitler Regime Has Spared No Suppression, Though Insisting It Will Stay Anyway.

---

MAJORITY FOR IT LIKELY

---

Reichstag Fire Is Capitalized -- Socialists Predicted Nazi Ruse Week Before.

---

By FREDERICK T. BIRCHAULL.
Wireless to THE NEW YORK TIMES.

​

BERLIN, March 3. -- No stranger election has perhaps ever been held in a civilized country than that in which the German people will reluctantly be going to the polls again when this dispatch is being read.

​

It is strange because the dominant forces therein have announced in advance that if the result is unfavorable to them it will not affect their tenure of office. It is stranger still because the most extraordinary measures have nevertheless been taken to insure that the outcome shall be to their liking.

​

It is difficult to portray for America the length to which these measure have been carried. It would seem there like a bad dream. The Opposition's meetings have been suppressed, its press has been gagged, the drilled and semi-disciplined "troopers" of the party in power have been armed and entrusted with supervision over their political opponents, the regular police have been placed under partisan control with new orders that can only be interpreted as the closest to official incitement to violence that a civil department could issue, the headquarters of the most aggressive factor int he Opposition has been closed and the hated flag of its political enemies has been hoisted over it, just as an army might signalize its capture of an enemy fortress.

---

Hitler did win the vote, gaining 44% of the popular vote and a 52% majority in parliament (see the New York Times for March 6, 1933).--PercyEdited by Percy, : Font face.

If you want to believe that Hitler forced himself on the German people, feel free. I'll leave it to the people to decide.

We're talking about a case in which the US Supreme Court is making up its own rules contrary to what the constitution says.

If not Hitler, then whom? The German people tacitly, if not downright vociferously, wanted a dictator. It was easy to throw out a constitution that they hated.

I don't disagree.What you are saying is similar to what lots of folks say when the Supreme Court ruling is different from what they expect or like. My personal belief is that the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in DC v. Heller was incorrect. But the constitution tells us that the majority decision of the Supreme Court, on a matter of constitution law, is binding on the other two branches until either a new Supreme Court decision overrules it or until the constitution is amended. That principle is why states like North Carolina caved pretty much immediately when the Court ruled that they could not prevent gay marriage. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The election after the burning of the Reichstag was a parliamentary election. The German people were voting for party candidates in local districts, not Hitler. When I said, "Hitler did win the vote," I only meant that it came out in his favor, not that he was on any ballot. As I said in my previous message, Hitler's party only got 44% of the popular vote. Despite Hitler's suppression of opposition, more people than not voted against Hitler's party. The German people were not of one voice, but the majority voice was against Hitler. The Nazi party did not win a majority in parliament, but had to form a coalition with another party to achieve their 52%. In answer to your question, "If not Hitler, then whom," if some party other than the Nazi's were able to achieved a majority or form a majority coalition, perhaps the Social Democrats, then they would have chosen the next chancellor from among their own ranks.You were originally trying to make a point about how a constitution is not a constraint on government. Whether or not that view has any general merit, the example you provided of Hitler seizing power in Germany because "hardly anybody objected" has no objective support.--Percy

One thing I should have added is that Hitler is an excellent example of a constitution not being sufficient to restrain a ruthless grab for power. But it would dishonor the memory of all those people whose lives were destroyed or lost by opposing Hitler's rise to and hold of power to say that "hardly anybody objected." Though I've read extensively about WWII, I've never found any indication that Germans hated their constitution. A fractured electorate grew out of the political confusion after WWI and the economic chaos of the imposed reparations, but I can find no sign of political or constituent groups that were anti-constitution. That doesn't mean some didn't exist. In a country as large as Germany there had to be at least some groups that disapproved of the post WWI constitution, perhaps longing for a return of the Kaiser, but they were evidently too inconsequential to achieve mention in any history I've read, and your statement wasn't based on historical knowledge anyway. Though Hitler ruled as dictator after 1933, he kept the constitution in place and used it to provide his dictatorship a veneer of legitimacy.--Percy

In Canada, few governments get much more than 40% of the popular vote. The point of the question was that the German people were perfectly willing to have somebody suspend the constitution. They didn't care who did it as long as somebody did it. With or without a constitution, it's the people who constrain the government.