Political Crossfire Forums

In so many of the current scandals I keep hearing, from both sides, that something was legal. When did legal equate to what is right. If I'm not mistaken, and I am rarely mistaken, the Nazi, Stalin, Mao and North Korean labor/prison camps were and are legal. Granted under the laws of those regimes. Much like the laws this government inflects on us.

The discussion not ought to be what can we do, but what should we do.....under our Constitution. Just being "legal" is not the goal.

Under the constitution, the rule of law...rules.

You're going to have to cope with that.

So, if a Congress and a President were to pass a law that said it was OK to put a bounty on illegals and then put them in a camp awaiting their home countries to pay a ransom, you would be just fine with that?

Good to know.

At one time it was legal for one person to own, as a slave, another person. Good grief, you would have made a great Democrat back in the early 1800's.

"How does one inflect a law on someone? Is it similar to inflicting?"

Yes, it is.

LOL! Thanks.






p.s., Proof read twice, then post once.

you are talking about legal that are wrong, regardless if it is prohibited or not. so these things are iustum quia iussum -- it is just because it is commanded

there are many instances where the us government goes against the structure of the constitution (malum prohibitum) as well as common decency (malum in se) but says they are just... because they said so. easy example that 99.99999% of people will agree upon is the treatment of citizens with japanese decent during WWII. however, i'm not sure what the point of the thread is

What's right is the frame work on which we build the legal system. Sometimes the legal code is outdated and what was written no longer reflect what's right. In this case the legal code should be updated.

Right and wrong is purely arbitrary, who decides that?