Changing the law to suit your own purposes is extremely questionable. And exactly the sort of thing that totalitarian states do.
As opposed to what? Changing the law to suit someone else's purposes? "Your purposes" is just a pejorative way of saying "your beliefs".
Of course I want to change the law to suit my beliefs, on the basis that I hold my beliefs because I think they're correct. That's not "the sort of thing totalitarian states do", that's something
everybody does.
Wanting to change laws to secure gun rights = "suiting my purposes". And yeah, the left calls
that fascist, too.
America's Founding Fathers inserted an absolute ban on attainding because they were well aware of the injustice and political abuse inherent in it.
[Hence any change would at a minimum require an Amendment to the US Constitution.]
The fact that you mention amendments is telling. Amending the law is possible for a
reason. Additionally, the "Founding Fathers" were hardly monolithic. Jefferson, the one I admire most, wanted
every law to automatically expire after 20 years, specifically because the living should never be chained to the will of the dead. Whether you agree with that is another matter (I have my own caveats), but it shows that your appeal to the supposed "will of the Founders" is misplaced.
Again, though: suppose someone wants to change the Constitution to allow bills of attainder (which were specifically outlawed, by the way, because Parliament had abused them; you could add provisions against abuse when re-introducing then). Suppose that. Why would that be "fascist"?
I'll now show that your argument, quoted below, is faulty to the point of being farcial.
The analogy is perfectly valid because historically its what they did. Baring someone from holding office for "Sins of the Blood" is precisely what happened in 1930 & 40's Germany. It is completely applicable.
Good heavens! It's something Hitler did! Quick! Round up all the vegetarians! Destroy all highways! HITLER SUPPORTED THAT CRAP!
That's a bullshit argument. Does one agree with Hitler's motivations? Are the reasons and goals the same? What is the proper context? You ignore all such questions, and posit a false equivalence.
However... bills of attainder were first banned by the USA for very specific reasons. (Same reason they banned the quartering of soldiers in citizens' homes: the British had done that, and it was a known grievance of the colonists.) This does not imply that it is "fascist". Lots of countries -- in fact, practically all -- continued to allow bills of attainder well into the 19th century, and continue to allow other things that the Consitution banned (such as the aforementioned quartering of soldiers during wartime) to this very day.
If something is "fascist" because Hitler did it, and therefore people here are "fascist" for advocating that thing, then -- by your logic -- basically all of 19th century Europe was "fascist". In other words: the definition of "fascist" that you employ to make your point is so ludicrously broad as to cover
anything you don't like. Which is precisely the leftist tactic that I decried.
Therefore, as an absolute prerequisite for honest debate, I now ask you to provide a definition of "fascism" which proves that bills of attainder are fascist. If that definition is so broad as to cover all or most of 19th century Europe, I ask you to admit that you are using "fascism" in so broad a sense as to render the term meaningless. If you have a more specific definition, I ask you to clarify why that definition supposedly covers
@The Immortal Watch Dog, but excludes the countless historical defenders of the
very same thing that leads you to call
his idea "fascist".
If you cannot provide such a definition, I ask you to admit that your accusation of fascism was false and misplaced.