| Revision as of 11:04, 14 November 2005 editStr1977 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers59,123 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:50, 20 November 2005 edit undoEffK (talk | contribs)1,566 edits →Discussion Enabling Act: Concision re dormancyNext edit → | ||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
| 2) Procedural changes are done by the Reichstag itself, no President or Chancellor (officially) involved. | 2) Procedural changes are done by the Reichstag itself, no President or Chancellor (officially) involved. | ||
| 2)I will have a look into the cleaning-up business but I can't do it now. Please have some patience. ] 11:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | 2)I will have a look into the cleaning-up business but I can't do it now. Please have some patience. ] 11:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :Str-that's all well and good, but your answer to how procedure changed has one problem . Isn't it the case that the procedure supposedly allowing for "arrest/dormancy" of certain deputies thus acted upon them to keep them ''quasi-legally'' from the Reichstage chamber at 23 Enabling Act ? | |||
| :This would appear to be the course of history as laid out in WP from the rider/cprallory mentioning the further procedural change , no ? But what you qualify here has a problem , which is that the Reichstag had not been sitting and thus had not been able to effect your defined change . Are you saying that the dormancy came from the previous Reichstag prior to the 5 March elections? That's fair enough , but when did it happen, when did the Reichstag sit to make such change, and vote on it ? Are you saying that the engineered co-alition appointed by Hindenburg on 30 January won a vote c Reichstag Fire Act to change procedure? When did the Reichstag sit then ? Did it sit then ? Can we be concise ? Decrees , yes, signed by the president( and badly forgettting ''habeas corpus'' , and , did the Reichstag assemble for the winding -up by Hitler's choice (to pressure the centre) and to appeal directly to the electorate ? Your reply pushed us closer and I look forward to your further qualification as to when the Reichstag itself sat to make/made the procedural change prior to the 23 April first sitting or prior to Hitler's calling elections for 5 March from an other-wise non-sitting assembly . Or was the previous Reichstag in function, in which case we can check and specify the day the dormancy procedure preceded the general elections for ther subsequent reichstag . I remind you that when I entererd WP that the Communists were supposedly proscribed prior to the Elections ! Could you ask this on Deutsch WP , or supply a concise means for the claim / fact .] 09:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:50, 20 November 2005
This article is a selected entry at Template:March 23 selected anniversaries (may be in HTML comment)
Please use Talk:Gleichschaltung for discussion. -- djmutex 2003-04-30
"Enabling act" is a common legal phrase. Your current article will have to be renamed and "Enabling Act" turned into a disambiguation page...something like "Enabling Act (Reichstag)". —B 19:19, Oct 23, 2003 (UTC)
Discussion Enabling Act
I suggest discussion should open here if there is need to comment etc . I say legally at the opening is disputable, ... legal appearance it is. EffK 03:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Though I had favoured restricting this article on the Act itself, it is a valid enterprise to expand it to include the event leading up to it (although these are already covered elsewhere). Hence I will not remove your edits, but they definitely need a clean-up language-wise, structure-wise, content-wise. I will come back to this later. Str1977 10:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC) .
- OK -you are so good at it -why dont you fix the present grammatical errors.
- I have been asking for qualification of the dormancy for a very long time , anf or clarification of its contradiction with article 2 . I refer to the changes of procedure , which destroyed the Institution . I think German speakers could help with that . Cvilised Europeans should have an understanding of german- I lack this .
- You seem to be quicker to criticise my language than to have repaired the ridiculous prior version. Your edits have now lead to a similar illogic, see if you can spot it . You alas seem to think that articles on WP should be as brief as possible- does this come from the nature of the Personal Computer format/screen ? Does WP have to be childish , abbreviated ? There are many long articles in Britannica .I remind you that this AE is much studied in Univerities , and even schools around the world . It requires therefore, the political background as it had developed . And this investigation of dormancy must be clarified absolutely from Institutional legislation . I repeat that I have long asked, such as Djmutex , to , to fill us in with a translation of these procedural changes. When , what , signed by Hindenburg? Another decree ? Please supply and include it here, wherever else it may be needed . Plase include what Bruning said about such dormancy- presunmably as this is cardinal , he referred to it at the time and afterwards in his memoirs. And does he confirm the monarchist allegations, I mentioned first so loong ago. You afre so good, please deal with this according to source on B's page when you can . I will visit elsewhere now .EffK 10:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Just three quick items: 1) Yes, being concise is one of the features of any encyclopedia, including WP. 2) Procedural changes are done by the Reichstag itself, no President or Chancellor (officially) involved. 2)I will have a look into the cleaning-up business but I can't do it now. Please have some patience. Str1977 11:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
- Str-that's all well and good, but your answer to how procedure changed has one problem . Isn't it the case that the procedure supposedly allowing for "arrest/dormancy" of certain deputies thus acted upon them to keep them quasi-legally from the Reichstage chamber at 23 Enabling Act ?
- This would appear to be the course of history as laid out in WP from the rider/cprallory mentioning the further procedural change , no ? But what you qualify here has a problem , which is that the Reichstag had not been sitting and thus had not been able to effect your defined change . Are you saying that the dormancy came from the previous Reichstag prior to the 5 March elections? That's fair enough , but when did it happen, when did the Reichstag sit to make such change, and vote on it ? Are you saying that the engineered co-alition appointed by Hindenburg on 30 January won a vote c Reichstag Fire Act to change procedure? When did the Reichstag sit then ? Did it sit then ? Can we be concise ? Decrees , yes, signed by the president( and badly forgettting habeas corpus , and , did the Reichstag assemble for the winding -up by Hitler's choice (to pressure the centre) and to appeal directly to the electorate ? Your reply pushed us closer and I look forward to your further qualification as to when the Reichstag itself sat to make/made the procedural change prior to the 23 April first sitting or prior to Hitler's calling elections for 5 March from an other-wise non-sitting assembly . Or was the previous Reichstag in function, in which case we can check and specify the day the dormancy procedure preceded the general elections for ther subsequent reichstag . I remind you that when I entererd WP that the Communists were supposedly proscribed prior to the Elections ! Could you ask this on Deutsch WP , or supply a concise means for the claim / fact .EffK 09:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC)