Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 36

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

  1. #1

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

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/...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.”



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Perhaps..

    I wonder what he thinks of the events in Nevada.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  4. #3

  5. #4
    Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax,
    No.

  6. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    No.
    And the people have the right to say that..
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    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."

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    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.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  9. #8
    "perhaps you should revolt."
    Perhaps......



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    but
    whowouldbuildtheroads?
    FLIP THOSE FLAGS, THE NATION IS IN DISTRESS!


    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    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.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    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.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    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.

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    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.

  16. #14
    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 ...
    The Bastiat Collection · FREE PDF · FREE EPUB · PAPER
    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law."
      -- The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
      -- Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      -- Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      -- Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·

  17. #15
    "...AND THEN WE WILL DO THIS TO YOU"

    or THIS


    well, really its this
    Last edited by jkr; 04-19-2014 at 04:46 PM.
    FLIP THOSE FLAGS, THE NATION IS IN DISTRESS!


    why I should worship the state (who apparently is the only party that can possess guns without question).
    The state's only purpose is to kill and control. Why do you worship it? - Sola_Fide

    Baptiste said.
    At which point will Americans realize that creating an unaccountable institution that is able to pass its liability on to tax-payers is immoral and attracts sociopaths?

  18. #16

    More...

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

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...constitutional

    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



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by CaseyJones View Post
    Justice Scalia: 'Foolish' to Have the Supreme Court Decide If NSA Wiretapping Is Unconstitutional

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...constitutional



    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.

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    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.
    There are no crimes against people.
    There are only crimes against the state.
    And the state will never, ever choose to hold accountable its agents, because a thing can not commit a crime against itself.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    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.
    http://glenbradley.net/share/aleksan...nitsyn_4-t.gif “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    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
    Last edited by Anti Federalist; 04-19-2014 at 07:58 PM.

  24. #21
    "Perhaps You Should Revolt"

    Um. Ok.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    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.)
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-20-2014 at 05:08 AM.

  26. #23
    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.
    Last edited by NorthCarolinaLiberty; 04-20-2014 at 06:05 AM.

  27. #24
    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.
    Dishonest money makes for dishonest people.

    Andrew Napolitano, John Stossel. FOX News Liberty Infiltrators.


    Quote Originally Posted by Inkblots View Post
    Dr. Paul is living rent-free in the minds of the neocons, and for a fiscal conservative, free rent is always a good thing
    NOBP ≠ ABO



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by CaseyJones View Post
    Justice Scalia: 'Foolish' to Have the Supreme Court Decide If NSA Wiretapping Is Unconstitutional

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-T...constitutional



    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.

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by GunnyFreedom View Post
    "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?

  31. #27
    "Original Intent" --> My Ass!

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

    TMike.....Quietly preparing for the "revolt".
    “No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.”
    ― Samuel Adams

  32. #28
    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.

  33. #29
    How does the average current tax burden inflation adjusted today compare to the average 1776 tax burden?

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

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Quark View Post
    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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Justice Antonin Scalia
    By TommyJeff in forum U.S. Constitution
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-14-2016, 08:29 AM
  2. Justice Scalia Agrees with Ron Paul
    By Matt Collins in forum Ron Paul Forum
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 10-05-2011, 07:46 PM
  3. Another Justice Scalia gem-commenting on Congress
    By bobbyw24 in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-07-2010, 12:27 PM
  4. Replies: 91
    Last Post: 11-18-2009, 06:34 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •