Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 36 of 36

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

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Occam's Banana View Post
    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).
    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Paul
    Perhaps the most important lesson from Obamacare is that while liberty is lost incrementally, it cannot be regained incrementally. The federal leviathan continues its steady growth; sometimes boldly and sometimes quietly. Obamacare is just the latest example, but make no mistake: the statists are winning. So advocates of liberty must reject incremental approaches and fight boldly for bedrock principles.
    The epitome of libertarian populism



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Feeding the Abscess View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Occam's Banana; 04-20-2014 at 05:33 PM.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Vanguard101 View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RP Support me on Patreon here Ephesians 6:12

  6. #34
    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.
    Last edited by anaconda; 04-20-2014 at 06:53 PM.

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    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

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    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?
    Last edited by Ronin Truth; 04-21-2014 at 12:33 AM.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


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
  •