united-states germany history
Stand the Patriot act in the U.S.A. a the Enabling act in Nazi Germany on equal footing?
<p>We all know that after 9/11 the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Patriot Act</a> (and new law) was constructed to give the U.S.A. more power in combating Islamic terrorists (the war on terror).</p>
<p>After the fire in the Reichstag in Nazi Germany, the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Enabling act</a> (a new law) ensued which was meant to give Hitler absolute power (thereby abolishing the Reichstag) to fight (arrest, torture, kill) the communists who were seen as terrorists.</p>
<p>In the U.S.A. too, people could be arrested more easily (Bush didn't take absolute power though), tortured (Guantanamo Bay), and killed in faraway lands (think of Afghanistan).</p>
<p>I know a question comparing the U.S.A. and Nazi Germany lies very sensitive but I really can't see any difference in changing the law and using the change for political reasons.</p>
<p>Many people though believe the Nazis put the building themselves on fire, as many people nowadays believe that the 9/11 terrorist attack was a U.S.A. government conspiracy. The F.B.I. knew already four days before the attack what was going to happen. And what to think about W.T.C. number seven? Etc.</p>
<p>Can we say these two acts stand on equal footing?</p>

<h2>No</h2>
<p>The Enabling Act was a law by which the Reichstag effectively abolished itself - <strong>adding</strong> legislative power to the government (Article 1, sentence 1). Government laws would be prepared by the Chancellor (Adolf Hitler) and published in the Reichsgesetzblatt (Artical 3, sentence 1). The law expires on the 1st of April 1937 <strong>or</strong> after the forming of a new government (Artical 5, sentence 2).<br />
Given the suppression and intimidation of members of that body it is likely that the law itself was unconstitutional. With this legal facade, the Nazis proceeded to institute a militaristic, undemocratic and illegal regime.</p>
<p>The Patriot Act did not amend the constitution and is subject to all the constitutional constraints on legislative and executive power. It delegated powers to the President that were within the constitutional power of the congress to so delegate. In particular, it did not in any way transfer legislative power to the executive; that would be unconstitutional. Further, it did not purport to put the powers of either branch beyond judicial review.</p>
