Olog-hai:
"Freezing laws in time to justify them is a liberal trait.
So it’s okay to enforce what is perceived as the laws of the time, just because of the era? like Jim Crow et cetera?
Thanks for re-reconfirming." Well, FRiend, why not just go full monty, and accuse me of supporting the Supreme Court's Dred Scott decision, since, after all, it was "the law of the land"?
If you've read my posts here from the beginning, then you'd know that my argument is: FDR did what he could do within US laws, to help European Jews.
For that, he deserves some credit.
Of course, laws passed in the 1920s in no way anticipated mass murders of the WWII Holocaust, however, those who condemn Roosevelt because he didn't break the law (like our current President does), are asking for unconstitutional measures which ultimately cannot end well.
Now you are re-confirmed.
Circular reasoning.
You accuse me of supporting bad US laws, but it’s all right that FDR did what he could within the scope of bad US laws, presuming he did anything in the first place (and again, he wrote the most executive orders of any US president in history). I see no denial of justification of bad laws.
And Rosen, really? The same guy who wrote
The Jewish Confederates and posited
Saving The Jews in the fictitious case of FDR being on trial and he being his jailhouse lawyer? This site is not DU or Stormfront, remember. So since he is suddenly a primary source via
argumentum ad verecundiam, it is all right to post
this as counterpoint.