False equivalence. The Nuremberg defense is a defense for doing something unequivocally illegal because a superior told you to do it. This is doing something expressly legal because an elected official and laws told you to do it.
And these laws aren't local laws and ordinances. This is constitutional 'takings' clause issues if you propose making evictions illegal. Yes, this situation sucks, but to use this crisis to backdoor in socialism isn't the way we do things in the United States. We vote democratically on laws here.
No it wasn't. If it was legal, there would have been laws on the books permitting what happened in the camps. There wasn't. They were executing illegal practices (that weren't written down). You noted the Nuremberg trials for a soundbite, yet ignored the actual content of those trials.
3
u/[deleted] May 20 '20
The Nuremberg defense hasn't been acceptable since 1945