Justice Scalia To Student: If Taxes Go Too High ‘Perhaps You Should Revolt’

[CaseyJones]

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/04/18/scalia-to-student-if-taxes-go-too-high-perhaps-you-should-revolt/


Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told a crowd of law school students that if taxes in the U.S. become too high then people “should revolt.”

Speaking at the University of Tennessee College of Law on Tuesday, the longest-serving justice currently on the bench was asked by a student about the constitutionality of the income tax, the Knoxville News Sentinel reports.

Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”

The justice was invited by the UT law school to present its annual “Rose Lecture,” and discussed events throughout his career such as his 1989 decision to rule with the majority that flag-burning was constitutionally protected speech. Scalia was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald Reagan in 1986.

“You’re entitled to criticize the government, and you can use words, you can use symbols, you can use telegraph, you can use Morse code, you can burn a flag,” Scalia told the standing-room-only crowd, according to the News Sentinel.

Scalia said that the justices aren’t swayed by partisan political spats, and that he doesn’t care which party controls the White House. He also expressed his theory of originalism, or that the U.S. Constitution is a fixed law and is not open to evolution or change over time.

“The Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake,” the justice said, according to the report. “It’s a law. It means what it meant when it was adopted.”

[pcosmar]

Perhaps..

I wonder what he thinks of the events in Nevada.

[Anti Federalist]

If?

[Quark]

Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax,

No.

[pcosmar]

No.

And the people have the right to say that..

[Quark]

And the people have the right to say that..

Yes, but government has no rights. It has only unsubstantiated powers. Any statement starting with "government has the right" is deductively false, since only individuals have rights, and they're natural. These powers on the otherhand are subjected to the whims of the people, and how much force they can tolerate without lashing back, which is why he said "perhaps you should revolt."

[pcosmar]

Yes, but government has no rights. It has only unsubstantiated powers. Any statement starting with "government has the right" is deductively false, since only individuals have rights, and they're natural. These powers on the otherhand are subjected to the whims of the people, and how much force they can tolerate without lashing back, which is why he said "perhaps you should revolt."

That is exactly what has happened in Nevada.

The people said NO.

[tod evans]

"perhaps you should revolt."

Perhaps......

[jkr]

but
whowouldbuildtheroads?

[GunnyFreedom]

No.
Unfortunately in 1913 we let those idiots pass the 16th Amendment. Just because something is technically 'legal' doesn't make it right, of course. Because of the 15th Amendment, it is in fact technically 'legal' to levy and collect a non capitated income tax, but it remains just as wrong as it was in 1798. A question of whether something is legal in America should always fall back to the Constitution. Those idiots amended it in 1913, and now it's authorized by the Constitution. We have to change that by repealing the 16th Amendment.

[GunnyFreedom]

Yes, but government has no rights. It has only unsubstantiated powers. Any statement starting with "government has the right" is deductively false, since only individuals have rights, and they're natural. These powers on the otherhand are subjected to the whims of the people, and how much force they can tolerate without lashing back, which is why he said "perhaps you should revolt."

switch Scalia's word "right" for "legal authority" and it works. Scalia was using the 'dummy' version of the word.

[Quark]

That is exactly what has happened in Nevada.

The people said NO.

I never said anything to dispute that. What I disputed was Scalia's claim in regards to whether or not the implementation of the income tax is a government right, which it is not.


on the bench was asked by a student about the constitutionality of the income tax



Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax,

They [government] do not have the right, they have the power, which they bestowed upon themselves with the 16th amendment. The use of the word "right" creates the connotation that the income tax is ethically justified. Whether Scalia intended for this or not (which I think not) does not mean it is correct. Since they are all law students and he's a judge, it would seem especially important for him to use "power" instead of "right" considering the legal connotations these words have.

[GunnyFreedom]

I never said anything to dispute that. What I disputed was Scalia's claim in regards to whether or not the implementation of the income tax is a government right, which it is not.





They [government] do not have the right, they have the power, which they bestowed upon themselves with the 16th amendment. The use of the word "right" creates the connotation that the income tax is ethically justified. Whether Scalia intended for this or not (which I think not) does not mean it is correct. Since they are all law students and he's a judge, it would seem especially important for him to use "power" instead of "right" considering the legal connotations these words have.

If you are expecting the members of the Supreme Court of the United States to apply legal knowledge, then you are going to have a long wait. All they ever really do is spew emotions and ignore the Constitution.

[Occam's Banana]

Scalia said that the justices aren’t swayed by partisan political spats, and that he doesn’t care which party controls the White House.

Well, of course. Why should anyone think otherwise?

After all, as long as the Establishment remains charge (and continues to pay obeisance to notion that Supreme Court "Justices" should get to play at being the ultimate rubber-stampers of what is or is not okey-dokey), then everything is just hunky-dory ...

[jkr]

"...AND THEN WE WILL DO THIS TO YOU"
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/uc-davis-peper-spray-meme-demotivational1.jpg
or THIS
http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/bloguploads/pepper-spray-am-law.jpg

well, really its this
http://dudelol.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/boxing.jpg

[CaseyJones]

Justice Scalia: 'Foolish' to Have the Supreme Court Decide If NSA Wiretapping Is Unconstitutional

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/04/19/Justice-Scalia-It-Is-Foolish-To-Have-The-Supreme-Court-Decide-if-NSA-Wiretapping-Is-Unconstitutional


Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment. Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution:

Justice Antonin Scalia said, "No because it's not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute. I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that's a terrible intrusion, but given the danger that it's guarding against it's not an unreasonable intrusion. And it can be the same thing with acquiring this data that is regarded as effects. That's why I say its foolish to have us make the decision because I don't know how serious the danger is in this NSA stuff, I really don't."

video at link

[GunnyFreedom]

Justice Scalia: 'Foolish' to Have the Supreme Court Decide If NSA Wiretapping Is Unconstitutional

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/04/19/Justice-Scalia-It-Is-Foolish-To-Have-The-Supreme-Court-Decide-if-NSA-Wiretapping-Is-Unconstitutional



video at link

What an idiot. This guy claims original intent. The Constitution doesn't say "right to be secure in your person except if we think you are a terrorist." Scalia needs to hang for pissing on the Constitution here.

[fisharmor]

Unfortunately in 1913 we let those idiots pass the 16th Amendment. Just because something is technically 'legal' doesn't make it right, of course. Because of the 15th Amendment, it is in fact technically 'legal' to levy and collect a non capitated income tax, but it remains just as wrong as it was in 1798. A question of whether something is legal in America should always fall back to the Constitution. Those idiots amended it in 1913, and now it's authorized by the Constitution. We have to change that by repealing the 16th Amendment.

Ah, but the 17th Amendment is the only reason why a Supreme Court justice saying these things is even news.

[GunnyFreedom]

Ah, but the 17th Amendment is the only reason why a Supreme Court justice saying these things is even news.

1913 was a REALLY bad year.

[Anti Federalist]

1913 was a REALLY bad year.

1900-1920

The worst of the worst came to pass in these two decades.

The Progressive Era.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

[GunnyFreedom]

"Perhaps You Should Revolt"

Um. Ok.

[Occam's Banana]

What an idiot. This guy claims original intent. The Constitution doesn't say "right to be secure in your person except if we think you are a terrorist." Scalia needs to hang for pissing on the Constitution here.

This is why most "original intent" supporters are not to be taken seriously. "Original intent" almost always ends up being used - wittingly or unwittingly - as nothing but a diversionary (and ultimately empty) fig leaf for the usurpation and corruption of the Constitution. Antonin Scalia easily serves as Exhibit A in the case for this.

For one thing, "original intent" (as deployed by Scalia, et al.) diverts attention away from the fact that all SCOTUS "Justices" are thoroughgoing Establishmentarians - else they would never have been nominated (let alone approved) for seats on SCOTUS in the first place. This is what underpins Scalia's observation that "justices aren’t swayed by partisan political spats, and that he doesn’t care which party controls the White House." He is very probably correct about this. After all, why should they be swayed by such? They are creatures of the Establishment, and the Establishment wins either way. The "partisan political spats" referred to by Scalia are just gimcrackery.

And the spats between "original intent" and "living document" partisans are exactly the same kind of gimcrackery. The "original intent" vs. "living document" debate serves only to obfuscate the fact that SCOTUS does NOT have any business doing the vast bulk of what it does in the first place. If (most of) the "original intent" crowd were really serious about it, they would recognize & acknowledge that the Supreme Court was never "originally intended" to be the ultimate or final arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. But they don't - because they are NOT really serious about it. Scalia and (most) "original intent" supporters have use for "original intent" only insofar as it does not conflict with their essential Establishmentarianism. When it does conflict, they will piss on the Constitution every time.

Thus, the "original intent" vs. "living document" debate is merely one more "partisan political spat" (to echo Scalia's own words). It is just another case of one faction of the Establishment hissing & spitting & clawing at a rival faction of the Establishment. Like the "left vs. right" or "Republican vs. Democrat" paradigms, the "original intent vs. living document" argument is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" ...

(And in case it wasn't clear in the above, I am NOT talking about all advocates or advocacies of "original intent" - only most of them. In particular, I am talking about understandings of "original intent" that tacitly & implicitly accept the alleged "supremacy" of the Supreme Court. If you are a supporter of "original intent" who understands & rejects the profound betrayals that occurred with Madison v. Marbury and other such "landmark" SCOTUS decisions, then you are NOT one of the people I am talking about. Antonin Scalia and others may like to gabble about "original intent" - but he and they are NOT your friends or allies.)

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Yeah, okay Tony. Revolt. Whatever you say.

I don't know if these people just want to be on the right side of history, or if they're just bored. You have to think there's one or two people in government right now who'd love to be sitting in a tent at the Bundy Ranch. That would be a stretch for Scalia, but maybe he thought he should have been the People's Court judge instead of Wapner. I used to see some sort of Latin judge, who, I guess, is supposed to be the hot version of Judge Judy. Maybe Scalia is trying to be hip and hook up with her on some kind of TV show.

[roho76]

Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax.......He also expressed his theory of originalism, or that the U.S. Constitution is a fixed law and is not open to evolution or change over time.

“The Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake,” the justice said, according to the report. “It’s a law. It means what it meant when it was adopted.”

I'm pretty sure the Constitution requires apportionment for taxes which is far from personal income taxes. Too bad these kids are too dumb to recognize the contradiction in what he said and called him out on it.

[Brett85]

Justice Scalia: 'Foolish' to Have the Supreme Court Decide If NSA Wiretapping Is Unconstitutional

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-TV/2014/04/19/Justice-Scalia-It-Is-Foolish-To-Have-The-Supreme-Court-Decide-if-NSA-Wiretapping-Is-Unconstitutional



video at link

There's no doubt at all that the Supreme Court will uphold the NSA program. That's why I never thought it was a good idea for Rand to launch his lawsuit. It's just going to create another precedent that the 4th amendment no longer exists.

[specsaregood]

"Perhaps You Should Revolt"
Um. Ok.

I've bolded what I think was the operative word in the sentence. I'm sure he is quite satisfied.

also


“You’re entitled to criticize the government, and you can use words, you can use symbols, you can use telegraph, you can use Morse code, you can burn a flag,” Scalia told the standing-room-only crowd, according to the News Sentinel.

Hrm, words, symbols telegraph, morse code, burn a flag... and when all those fail? what should we use then scalia?

[TruckinMike]

"Original Intent" --> My Ass!

Antonin Scalia is the prick that gave us "reasonable regulation" during the Heller case.

TMike.....Quietly preparing for the "revolt".

[oyarde]

I would like for the Judge to define what " too high" taxes may be . My tax burden now is just slightly under 50 % and I live in a low cost area.

[Ronin Truth]

How does the average current tax burden inflation adjusted today compare to the average 1776 tax burden?

Suspecting the answer..... lock and load.

[Vanguard101]

Yes, but government has no rights. It has only unsubstantiated powers. Any statement starting with "government has the right" is deductively false, since only individuals have rights, and they're natural. These powers on the otherhand are subjected to the whims of the people, and how much force they can tolerate without lashing back, which is why he said "perhaps you should revolt."
When you agree to a contract or document, the constitution, you give an entity the right in most cases. The founders decided to allow the government the right to tax. These powers are rights. Entities have rights whether they are people or not.

[Feeding the Abscess]

This is why most "original intent" supporters are not to be taken seriously. "Original intent" almost always ends up being used - wittingly or unwittingly - as nothing but a diversionary (and ultimately empty) fig leaf for the usurpation and corruption of the Constitution. Antonin Scalia easily serves as Exhibit A in the case for this.

For one thing, "original intent" (as deployed by Scalia, et al.) diverts attention away from the fact that all SCOTUS "Justices" are thoroughgoing Establishmentarians - else they would never have been nominated (let alone approved) for seats on SCOTUS in the first place. This is what underpins Scalia's observation that "justices aren’t swayed by partisan political spats, and that he doesn’t care which party controls the White House." He is very probably correct about this. After all, why should they be swayed by such? They are creatures of the Establishment, and the Establishment wins either way. The "partisan political spats" referred to by Scalia are just gimcrackery.

And the spats between "original intent" and "living document" partisans are exactly the same kind of gimcrackery. The "original intent" vs. "living document" debate serves only to obfuscate the fact that SCOTUS does NOT have any business doing the vast bulk of what it does in the first place. If (most of) the "original intent" crowd were really serious about it, they would recognize & acknowledge that the Supreme Court was never "originally intended" to be the ultimate or final arbiter of what is or is not Constitutional. But they don't - because they are NOT really serious about it. Scalia and (most) "original intent" supporters have use for "original intent" only insofar as it does not conflict with their essential Establishmentarianism. When it does conflict, they will piss on the Constitution every time.

Thus, the "original intent" vs. "living document" debate is merely one more "partisan political spat" (to echo Scalia's own words). It is just another case of one faction of the Establishment hissing & spitting & clawing at a rival faction of the Establishment. Like the "left vs. right" or "Republican vs. Democrat" paradigms, the "original intent vs. living document" argument is "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" ...

(And in case it wasn't clear in the above, I am NOT talking about all advocates or advocacies of "original intent" - only most of them. In particular, I am talking about understandings of "original intent" that tacitly & implicitly accept the alleged "supremacy" of the Supreme Court. If you are a supporter of "original intent" who understands & rejects the profound betrayals that occurred with Madison v. Marbury and other such "landmark" SCOTUS decisions, then you are NOT one of the people I am talking about. Antonin Scalia and others may like to gabble about "original intent" - but he and they are NOT your friends or allies.)

One could very easily argue that the original intent of the constitution was to expand the federal government. In this context, Scalia very much fits as an 'original intent' advocate (and doesn't harm his establishmentarian credentials in any way).

[Occam's Banana]

One could very easily argue that the original intent of the constitution was to expand the federal government. In this context, Scalia very much fits as an 'original intent' advocate (and doesn't harm his establishmentarian credentials in any way).

One could indeed argue such - and Scalia would certainly fit that particular framing of the matter.
But that isn't the sense of the "originalism" publicly invoked by (pseudo-)originalists like Scalia themselves.

[heavenlyboy34]

When you agree to a contract or document, the constitution, you give an entity the right in most cases. The founders decided to allow the government the right to tax. These powers are rights. Entities have rights whether they are people or not.
...Except no living person agreed to said contract. It is void. See No Treason by Lysander Spooner.

[anaconda]

From my naive perspective, it seems that the SCOTUS often extends great leeway to the citizens for legislating, or striking down legislation, as the means to shape their lives. And that the People are always free to "throw the bums out." I find myself wishing, at times, that the Constitution was written with a bit more clarity and detail regarding authoritarian restraint. I am reminded of a comment by Stefan Molyneux who lamented that his cell phone contract was magnitudes more detailed than the constitution of the U.S.

[oyarde]

How does the average current tax burden inflation adjusted today compare to the average 1776 tax burden?

Suspecting the answer..... lock and load.
Something I think about .... In 1765 , lets see ,maybe stamp tax , import tax on glass windows and whiskey ,local property tax on land and businesses. There was no income tax , no inheritance tax , no sales tax , no social security tax , no medicare tax etc

[Ronin Truth]

Something I think about .... In 1765 , lets see ,maybe stamp tax , import tax on glass windows and whiskey ,local property tax on land and businesses. There was no income tax , no inheritance tax , no sales tax , no social security tax , no medicare tax etc Thanks! And as an additional aside, it took until 1849 for the Federal government to spend the first billion dollars cumulatively.

What is wrong with this picture?