Justice Scalia sounds like a Legal Insurrectionist
“But if reaches certain point, perhaps you should revolt”
Did Justice Antonin Scalia just recognize the concept of a legal insurrection?
Here’s the definition of the allegedly oxymoronic term:
“a rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt” “in conformity with, or permitted by law.”
Here’s part of Scalia’s recent speech in Tennessee, as reported by the Knoxville News (emphasis added):
“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. “It’s all expression and it’s all covered by the First Amendment.” …
“The Constitution is not a living organism for Pete’s sake. It’s a law. It means what it meant when it was adopted,” he said.
After his prepared remarks, Scalia took questions from eager law students who lined the aisles of the theatre. His remarks there were more candid, pointing to the Washington, D.C. v. Heller opinon — a second-amendment case — as his proudest moment on the court.
When another students asked about the constitutionality of income tax, he assured the student that the government could, in fact, take his money.
“But if reaches certain point, perhaps you should revolt,” Scalia advised the young man.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
It already reached that point, a long time ago.
Not yet. Unresolved debt represents a progressive (i.e. incremental) devaluation of capital and labor. Most people are comfortable managing a financed future. The remaining population are subsidized, so they enjoy a similar “comfort”.
That said, the problem is not debt per se; but, structural debt, which cannot be reasonable expected to decline in the foreseeable future, and induces misalignment through distortion of supply and demand. We have indeed reached that point. However, the wide distribution of private capital, and the compensation of public welfare, has delayed reconciliation of our unbalanced accounts.
There are several strategies which mitigate the imminent risk associated with structural debt. Most notoriously there is population control (e.g. abortion/murder, contraception) or, alternatively, reduced problem set. There is also cheaper labor (e.g. illegal aliens, outsourcing); shifted (e.g. “green” production in China) or obfuscated (e.g. windmill gauntlets, solar ovens) environmental disruption; private capital capture (e.g. health care “reform”); redistributive change (e.g. welfare); and, of course, lies of commission, omission, and deception.
Well, what more is there to say.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
There is no way to predict when, and where, exactly, the bubble will burst. Although, there are some obvious areas of weakness, where catastrophic change is likely to occur.
Your reply is tedious and misses the point. Or as Geert Wilders would say, “I appreciate your comment, but I disagree with you.”
Scalia is not saying, revolt if a crisis occurs because of collapse due to debt. It’s, if they are taking too much money for no damn good reason, it may be time to revolt.
Interestingly, Scalia didn’t comment on whether what they are spending all that money on, was constitutional; at least not in this report of it. That is the more interesting question.
Revolt does not necessarily imply violence. A good first step is to withhold cooperation. Camus said that the only real power an individual has against an overwhelming state is the power to say NO!
Like those who refuse to register their guns in Connecticut.
I have never had a problem paying ‘some’ taxes on what I earn in order to support our defense and our interstate transportation system, also the legal infrastructure.
I have a big problem paying for every ‘blowing in the
whim’ that works to get someone elected or re-elected.
I think Justice Scalia would agree: caveat emptor works here, too. Buyers beware of what gov’t and its dubious servants want to purvey.
A good first step in a legalized revolt against tyranny would be to abolish the IRS.
No, Paul, that would be the END of a legal revolt.
The beginning is when you decide there are laws you will not abide, and conformity they cannot demand of you.
Civil disobedience works every time it has enough popular support, and for several very powerful reasons.
I’m more than ready.
Has anyone seen the 1981 movie Harry’s War?
I’m convinced that somehow the IRS got the movie banned for twenty years since it wasn’t available *anywhere* between 1981 and 2000.
I am going to watch this movie that I have never heard of. Sounds quite interesting and their are clips on you tube that show it to be interesting.
It does bring to mind something that makes me wonder about people with technical skills. Why don’t people hack into Lois Lerner’s accounts and other IRS officials. Screw up their taxes, publish their dirty laundry etc. In this day and age I don’t see how that would not be more a more effective way of fighting the IRS.
Something can be both legal and constitutional and still be wrong. Income tax is a very good example. There is nothing in the constitution that says that politicians can’t take wealth from private citizens on whatever terms they want for no other reason than the citizens have it and the politicians want it. Whether they should do that is an entirely separate question, which I think is what Nino is saying here. On many issues, the constitution bows to the will of the voters and their representatives.
That said, it’s mind-boggling to me how many American citizens just take the tyrannical despotic income tax and just throw up their hands and think there’s no other way for society to function or government to raise revenue but to stick its tentacles into every private transaction in the economy. People say they “hate” “taxes” but then act like there are no alternatives to the status quo.
And I think it was Stevens that told us we have the government we voted for……