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.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.