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

page: 1
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I am sure that statists will read into it but, thankfully, this is one of our supreme court justices reiterating what we all know (or used to anyway), that citizens may engage in peaceful civil revolt whenever policy conflicts with the public interest (that is, the interest of the public as opposed to the interests of public servants).


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



Knoxville, Tenn. (CBS DC) – 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.”




“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.



“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.”

edit on 19-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



+5 more 
posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


“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

Maybe so but people are beginning to realize that that is not all they can do. There comes a point when talk is worthless and actions speak louder than words. At that point the US people need to be listening to Thomas Jefferson, not Antonin Scalia.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:04 PM
link   
Let's just hope that enough people start the revolt at the same point. Otherwise you get a few people revolting at one point put down then at another point a few people revolt and are put down and at yet another point a few people revolt and are put down.

See, the nations too big and everybody has a different line drawn and an equal number of people have a different line drawn in the opposite direction.

Like a tug of war. It's easy for the 200 million statists on one side of the rope to yank down the 200 thousand libertarians on the other side of the rope.

Over time things change. The question is which side of the rope is gaining teammates and which side is losing them?



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:12 PM
link   
Its pretty evident that that the Libertarian movement is gaining ground and prestige.
Despite whatever the government tries to paint them, they are gaining recruits daily......
Guns sales are at all time highs because the government has lost the trust of the people.....
Everyone is stocking up (however they may) for the inevitable SHTF when the rubber meets the road.....



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:18 PM
link   
How very careful he is to pass the buck?

He's a sitting executive of the Administration.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 12:36 PM
link   
a reply to: thisguyrighthere

Wow, have you hit the nail on the head. This is actually something that I have posted about with regards to NSA snooping.

If you were to attempt, for instance, to form a rebellion using online resources, or a cellphone, it would be shutdown before it got started. This is, IMNSHO, one of the reasons the government snooping has gotten so extreme.

Allow me, if you will, to cite an example from one Hillary Clinton. A bevy of documents were released last night among the typical Friday news dump. Quite a bit, in fact, to forage through the entire weekend.

Anyway, in these documents, released as a PDF, Ms. Clinton voiced a very real fear of the Republican access to, and use of, the internet, stating there is no "central gateway", no real monitoring system, to track Republicans, who have been classed as "extremists" by DHS. This was very enlightening, and even explains many of the actions of Mr. Obama.

The actions of any rebellion will be seen as anarchist, extremist, and, acted upon by DHS and likely other forms of Federal government policing agencies. The person or person(s) are even likely at this point, to be charged with incitement, insurrection, or worse. The people now fear the government, and they know it.

This is exactly why the events that took place at the Bundy Ranch took the Fed's by such utter surprise. They simply were not prepared for any type of rebellion, let alone one of that size turnout. They had no choice but to retreat.

Therein lies the problem, however. You arrange something, and you won't see the light of day for a long time. The best, and only hope, is that when it happens, it is so fast, and spontaneous, that they have zero time to shut it down.

The states, and the people are ripe, and DHS knows this, as well. They know it's coming, yet they keep pushing, because every little inch we give is a mile taken. Who knew that the Bundy Ranch ordeal would be that straw? No one could have guessed.

That is how it will go down. Sudden, responsive, and widespread, and no one can predict what the next straw will be, nor, how far across the camels' back it is going to go. One thing I know for certain. Unless there is an intentional agitator in the crowd hell bent on starting something, it WILL be the Feds that fire the first shot.

With all the crying about guns and gun ownership, I think the people at Bundy's Ranch proved one thing. Responsible gun owners are NOT the problem. Not one shot was fired out of anger or insanity. In fact, the only harm, only injuries, and only damage done was done by the Federal Government.

Brb, getting that pdf link about Hillary.

Okay, grabbed the link, please don't shoot the messenger! The source does not leasen the quotes, and contains the link to the pdf.

mobile.wnd.com...


The most important of the documents, “The
Communication Stream of Conspiracy Commerce,”
originally some 331 pages, was reduced to only 28
pages in the sanitized and heavily redacted version
posted by the presidential library.


Here is the link to the pdf:

www.clintonlibrary.gov...

It is redacted down to 23 pages, so not a prohibitive file size.


Most notable in the sections of the report released
publicly is the concern the White House had for the
impact of the new media, hearkening back to
Hillary Clinton’s concern about the Internet that
there were “no gatekeepers.”

“The Internet has become one of the major and
most dynamic modes of communication,” the
report warns. “The Internet can link people, groups
and organizations together instantly. Moreover, it
allows an extraordinary amount of unregulated
data and information to be located in one area and
available to all. The right wing has seized upon the
Internet as a means of communicating its ideas to
people. Moreover, evidence exists that Republican
staffers surf the Internet, interacting with
extremists in order to exchange ideas and
information.”


I was utterly speechless having read this, because it is exactly what Obama did, when he campaigned. First, he used it to his advantage, then, he started talking about shutting people, and groups, down. He villified the very tools that got him elected, and suddenly, Republicans became extremists. His words exactly mimick hers.

edit on 19-4-2014 by Libertygal because: ETA link and information
edit on 19-4-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: thisguyrighthere

See, the nations too big and everybody has a different line drawn and an equal number of people have a different line drawn in the opposite direction.


Being 17 trillion in debt I am sure the issue can cross political ideology. There are Democrats who don't like the amount of spending we see from the government. Tax revolts have occurred in the US in the past and were successful. Those incidents were at the state level.

I think it would certainly send a message to Washington.

I like Justice Scalia. I like the fact he is willing to speak the truth when it comes to the Constitution. I like the fact he is willing to state his position and hold his ground instead of backing down.

Now if we can get Scalia in as Chief Justice and Roberts out as Chief Justice... Robert's recently made a comment that the 2nd amendment only applies to the military. I don't see the recent scotus rulings being changed any time soon but the specter of change is present.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bassago
a reply to: greencmp


“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

Maybe so but people are beginning to realize that that is not all they can do. There comes a point when talk is worthless and actions speak louder than words. At that point the US people need to be listening to Thomas Jefferson, not Antonin Scalia.


Yes, but what was he supposed to say, "You should have an armed rebellion?' My sense of Scalia is that he really isn't very happy with the idea the government has taken that the COTUS is a "living, breathing document" rather than a document of the law and bedrock foundation. That doesn't mean you can't ever change the COTUS because the mechanisms exist for it, but you certainly don't change it on a whim to suit your needs of the moment.

My other sense of him based on things I've heard is that he fully understands what the 2nd Amendment is in there for in every sense of the original intent.

If he's saying, "perhaps you should revolt." He means it and he is fully aware of every possible meaning that could take under the COTUS. Just because he didn't spell it out in so many words also means he's a prudent man.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 01:56 PM
link   
Hey Tony, thanks for stating the obvious. I'm ready. When do we start? Glad I spent 20 yrs in the NAVY. You learn a lot about insurgency when you work in the NAVSECGRU command. I used to love having a nice hot cup of NAVY Joe, Telling my A-Sup to mind the store, and sitting down to an hour or so of reading all the intel summaries that were published that day. As so clearly demonstrated by first the Mujahedin with the Russians, and then the Taliban with the NATO coalition, putting a highly sophisticated military in the field to fight, WITHOUT A CLEAR CUT strategy for victory , means the highly sophisticated military has a big problem on it's hands. The idea that our folks in uniform would be any more effective fighting a U.S. insurgency doesn't hold any water. But what really bothers me? the CinC and the the Joint Chiefs think it's a GOOD idea! Apparently, to stupid and cowardly to understand a simple concept. The Feral Government IS NOT THE UNITED STATES! When the powers that be give the order to start butchering the citizens of the united states, I'm pretty sure a lot of the officer and NCO's in the military that try and give that order will be getting the same response from the "troops". Gun powder assisted attitude adjustment. People in the armed forces take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. And 99.9 percent of the domestic enemies are all concentrated in one place. Washington DC. the "DC" stands for "District of Cluelessness:.
edit on 4192014 by tencap77 because: Spelling. Content



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: loveguy
How very careful he is to pass the buck?

He's a sitting executive of the Administration.


no he's not he is a sitting Associate Justice of Supreme Court of the United States, ie the Judicial Branch.
and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, and confirmed 98–0.

there is a big difference in the Executive and Judicial branches.

ETA: he can't do anything legally anyway, unless it is brought up before the court. then he and the other Justice could rule whether a law or taxes are constitutional or not.
edit on 19-4-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

Thank you for the correction.



Seems could be an actual avenue.
edit on (4/19/1414 by loveguy because: jesse told me too--->



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie

originally posted by: loveguy
How very careful he is to pass the buck?

He's a sitting executive of the Administration.


no he's not he is a sitting Associate Justice of Supreme Court of the United States, ie the Judicial Branch.
and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, and confirmed 98–0.

there is a big difference in the Executive and Judicial branches.

ETA: he can't do anything legally anyway, unless it is brought up before the court. then he and the other Justice could rule whether a law or taxes are constitutional or not.



So what your saying, is he works for one of the three branches of the feral government who's only purpose is to conspire against the citizens of the US to keep they're boot on our throat. What's that you say? Checks & Balances. Nice try. Next your going to tell me if I like my doctor I can keep my doctor! or the always disturbing "We're here from THE government (It's never "YOUR" government") and we're here to help! Trusting the supreme court is the same as trusting the IRS is the same as trusting FEMA is the same as trusting NSA (Hi guys! how's the coffee
) or trusting the office of POTUS . Don't do it!!!!!! and if you don't trust the government, then GOOD FOR YOU !
the idea that the supreme court is interested in upholding the law is laughable!



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: tencap77

originally posted by: hounddoghowlie

originally posted by: loveguy
How very careful he is to pass the buck?

He's a sitting executive of the Administration.


no he's not he is a sitting Associate Justice of Supreme Court of the United States, ie the Judicial Branch.
and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1986, and confirmed 98–0.

there is a big difference in the Executive and Judicial branches.

ETA: he can't do anything legally anyway, unless it is brought up before the court. then he and the other Justice could rule whether a law or taxes are constitutional or not.



So what your saying, is he works for one of the three branches of the feral government who's only purpose is to conspire against the citizens of the US to keep they're boot on our throat. What's that you say? Checks & Balances. Nice try. Next your going to tell me if I like my doctor I can keep my doctor! or the always disturbing "We're here from THE government (It's never "YOUR" government") and we're here to help! Trusting the supreme court is the same as trusting the IRS is the same as trusting FEMA is the same as trusting NSA (Hi guys! how's the coffee
) or trusting the office of POTUS . Don't do it!!!!!! and if you don't trust the government, then GOOD FOR YOU !
the idea that the supreme court is interested in upholding the law is laughable!


actually Scalia is one of the best justices there is. he is one of the five that said the 2nd applied to individuals, and voted against obamacare, and scorned roberts for backing it publicly.

ETA: check his record.
edit on 19-4-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)


ETA:



And the wily judge suggested to an audience of Smithsonian Associates at George Washington University's Lisner Auditorium Tuesday night that he is not just preparing for a new gun control challenge, but that he's softening up one of his liberal colleague on guns.



Back then, he said, Americans didn't go nuts when they saw a gun. "It was no big deal. Carrying a gun was no big deal," he said. Today is a different story, he lamented. "It's very sad the attitude of the public at large on guns has changed so much that they associate it with nothing but crime."

both quotes come from
Antonin Scalia says gun control is heading to Supreme Court
edit on 19-4-2014 by hounddoghowlie because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 03:40 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

Revolts won't happen as long as people have money in their pocket, and still have a warm meal. We have different classes of citizens, the poor are most likely to revolt first, but that will fall on deaf ears because our government doesn't care about the poor. They won't be shaking in their boots until the middle class joins them and the revolt spreads across every state in the union. That will be a tell tell sign if police officers and the military take sides with their government or the people.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Those could be some of the scariest words I've ever heard.
When the best advice a U.S. Supreme Court Justice can give is to revolt.....?
I don't know what else to say about it..

God help us.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I can't believe that a supreme court justice encourages a revolution and all the supposed patriots here think it's a great idea!
The ironic thing is that Federal taxes are at their lowest level since the 1930's. It really shows how deranged right-wingers in this country are.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


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



Revolting is okay, but remember to stay inside the free speech zone at all times.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: greencmp


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



Revolting is okay, but remember to stay inside the free speech zone at all times.



I already knew you were revolting.

**pa-dum-dum**




posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: greencmp


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



Revolting is okay, but remember to stay inside the free speech zone at all times.

Yes remember your place and where you can stand, according to obama's thugs.



posted on Apr, 19 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


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

Foreign bankers knew full well that income tax was unconstitutional and was declared exactly that by the SCOTUS in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

I suppose he's referring to the 16th Amendment but that wasn't added until 1913, the year of the "Federal Reserve", the income tax and the IRS.

Many people dont recognize the 16th Amendment arguing that it was never properly ratified by the states.

But to make a blanket statement like the government has that right, is just plain wrong.

edit on 19-4-2014 by gladtobehere because: wording





new topics
top topics
 
22
<<   2 >>

log in

join