Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 2
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I have several issues with what Justice Scalia has spoken!

1stly He wimped out and did not state that one can legally shoot the bastards under the 2nd amendment!

2ndly On the issue of the Fed Govs 'right' to impliment taxes ...

If the Fed Gov is a corporation then it doesn't get any rights at all!

The Fed Gov CAN try whatever the hell it wants to ... its up to the 'We The People' to allow it or not!




posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
a reply to: greencmp
I do not understand what all the fuss is about. I understand that our tax rates are set by elected representatives. Yes, I have been told that 50% of the electorate do not pay any taxes at all and over 50% elected officials are lawyers. Our government tells us to be happy, pay our taxes and shut up. Our government tells us to be satisfied that we are a free and democratic people. In my state, our government of lawyers, has provided us with 5.6 million pages of laws and regulations to "insure" that we remain that way.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 09:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Bassago
I agree. Our society is very fragile and speech of overt revolution is dangerous and can easily result in reversion to anarchy. It is all held together by an unstable web of government(led by lawyers), religion, spectator sports drugs and alcohol. Let it be.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 10:12 AM
link   
apparently Scalia thinks he would be immune to a government revolt by the people. either he knows for a fact that he would be, or he doesn't understand the implications of what he said.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 10:19 AM
link   
a reply to: jimmyx

well unless the revolt was led by some half cocked yahoo's, which in that case anyone that would follow them would be no better. i think that a smart leadership would include men like Scalia in their revolt. he is one smart cookie and knows what he is talking about.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: hounddoghowlie

The problem with revolution is that when the old right wing order is kicked out, a more psycho right wing order is put in, with the left wing crushed in the transition. Look at the nutty Ron Paul and his followers. He's a ultra right wing, free market fundamentalist, the prescribed "solution" to the ruling elite capitalists. More capitalism, then, is offered as the solution. Remember, Hitler came into power because the revolutionaries during the German Revolution, most of whom were Marxists, communists, unionists and workers, wanted to topple the aristocracy (basically Occupy Berlin). The elites wouldnt let this happen, so supported Hitler, who crushed the rebels (under the guise that they are evil Jews and evil communists). This is just an extreme example of what happens when populist revolutions stand up for the masses.
edit on 20-4-2014 by EC666 because: (no reason given)


Napolean is another good example. French revolution? Great stuff. It was the masses, the 99 percent, fighting for some semblance of civil rights and democracy. But all of Europe, all the Kings, opposed and waged war on the revolutionaries, leading to Napoleon taking power, who of course became a tyrant.

The elites dont mind revolution. They always get what they want out of it.
edit on 20-4-2014 by EC666 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Here's the thing everyone should remember: Scalia is a mouthpiece of the establishment.

TPTB WANT a violent uprising, because that they know exactly how to handle.

What we need to give them is the kind of "revolt" they're totally unprepared to handle. Nonviolent nonparticipation is the answer. No major uprising, no violence, no destruction of property, no chaos from which they can form "order"--just a concerted show of silent noncompliance by we the people.

Look at what happened in Conn. and NY when registration time came for those new guns laws. That's right, NOTHING. People just quietly and peacefully ignored the feds. And in so doing, the people gave the government the biggest "eff you" it's received in a long long time.

And what was the government's answer? Nothing.

So yeah, a violent revolt the government is happy to handle. But peaceful nonparticipation... that, no corrupt government on earth has been able to long withstand.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: JonButtonIII
Here's the thing everyone should remember: Scalia is a mouthpiece of the establishment.

TPTB WANT a violent uprising, because that they know exactly how to handle.

What we need to give them is the kind of "revolt" they're totally unprepared to handle. Nonviolent nonparticipation is the answer. No major uprising, no violence, no destruction of property, no chaos from which they can form "order"--just a concerted show of silent noncompliance by we the people.

Look at what happened in Conn. and NY when registration time came for those new guns laws. That's right, NOTHING. People just quietly and peacefully ignored the feds. And in so doing, the people gave the government the biggest "eff you" it's received in a long long time.

And what was the government's answer? Nothing.

So yeah, a violent revolt the government is happy to handle. But peaceful nonparticipation... that, no corrupt government on earth has been able to long withstand.


That is what I meant by statists reading into it and why I specified peaceful civil revolt against excessive taxation and poor stewardship of public resources.

Star anyway but, Scalia is no mouth piece for the administration though, I can't exactly deny that he is a member of the powers that be since he is a supreme court justice.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: JonButtonIII
Here's the thing everyone should remember: Scalia is a mouthpiece of the establishment.

TPTB WANT a violent uprising, because that they know exactly how to handle.

What we need to give them is the kind of "revolt" they're totally unprepared to handle. Nonviolent nonparticipation is the answer. No major uprising, no violence, no destruction of property, no chaos from which they can form "order"--just a concerted show of silent noncompliance by we the people.

Look at what happened in Conn. and NY when registration time came for those new guns laws. That's right, NOTHING. People just quietly and peacefully ignored the feds. And in so doing, the people gave the government the biggest "eff you" it's received in a long long time.

And what was the government's answer? Nothing.

So yeah, a violent revolt the government is happy to handle. But peaceful nonparticipation... that, no corrupt government on earth has been able to long withstand.


That's true. There were various financial protests by students in the UK back in the 1980's. First one was the opposition to the "poll tax" where the payment of property tax (or the poll tax) was assigned to the tenants while the mortgage payments remained with the property owner. The amount of poll tax paid depended on the number of residents. Students organized a "Can't pay - won't pay" protest. Though that might simply have been left-wingers against the then Conservative government.

Then there was the opposition to student loans - students threatened to boycott the first bank that offered student loans. Though the banks didn't really want to offer them either due to the foreseeable inability to keep track of a transient population. The Student Loans Company makes an annual loss of billions.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

So, did one of the people who is supposed to be protecting us from abuses of our rights just say "you're on your own"

Or did he just say it would be understandable to take up arms over a financial burden that was not a violation of our rights?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 03:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: The Vagabond
a reply to: greencmp

So, did one of the people who is supposed to be protecting us from abuses of our rights just say "you're on your own"

Or did he just say it would be understandable to take up arms over a financial burden that was not a violation of our rights?


The real problem with the income tax amendment is that it was passed without the proper votes and is therefore null and void in theory (I wouldn't expect him to say that as a sitting judicial branch appointee since legislation is strictly the responsibility of congress, one of the other legs of the stool). However, as with every mile taken for every inch conceded the fact is that, from a legal perspective in America if you sign a W-2 form you are voluntarily participating.

So, interestingly, if someone wanted to avoid the income tax, one would have to work 'under the table'. Interesting because, legally, that means one must break the law in order to retain one's constitutional rights.

Frankly, he didn't say very much on the subject at all. What I took from what he did say was that citizens should participate in the process of resisting government overreach by refusing to pay taxes if they are too high.
edit on 20-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:12 PM
link   
We know where this is going, right?

Since it's happened before.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp


originally posted by: greencmp
That is what I meant by statists reading into it and why I specified peaceful civil revolt against excessive taxation and poor stewardship of public resources.

Star anyway but, Scalia is no mouth piece for the administration though, I can't exactly deny that he is a member of the powers that be since he is a supreme court justice.


I should probably clarify. By "mouthpiece of the establishment," I don't mean to suggest that he's a mouthpiece of this particular administration. Rather, I simply mean that Scalia is an entrenched member of this establishment as a whole (tenured Supreme Court justice), and this dude is NEVER going to suggest we the people do anything that would have a good probability of disrupting his power base within that system.

The CEO of Pepsi might give good advice on a number of fronts, but he's not seriously going to tell you how to start up your own successful soft-drink company, ya dig?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 04:42 PM
link   
a reply to: JonButtonIII

I guess I am not as cynical on this subject. The judicial branch is a foundational component of our constitutional government.
edit on 20-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:16 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

w0rd, I'm with you 110% on that. We absolutely need a functional judicial system.

But we also need one that is completely impartial. Where you've got a system of "justices" (term used very very loosely--and mostly ironically) that are appointed by politicians, and you've got an NSA spygrid holding God-knows-what over their heads, we the people have no choice but to assume our judiciary has been permanently and irrevocably compromised.

I mean, anyone who still believes our judicial system isn't corrupted beyond belief only needs to look at the Obamacare decision where John Roberts performed the flipflop of all flipflops. The NSA must've dug up some SERIOUS blackmail material on that dude.

Any system of governance where anything even REMOTELY like that can happen is broken beyond repair. We need to scrap the entire system, format and reboot the hard drive. That, of necessity, means throwing "Justice" Scalia out with the filthy bathwater. And he knows it...

Which is precisely why you'll never get honest reform advice from him, or from anyone within this broken machine we still call "our" government.



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:21 PM
link   
a reply to: JonButtonIII

Our system is designed to break and be fixed regularly. We don't need a new constitution, we need to follow the one we have.

Roberts ticked me off but, the only saving grace as I listened to his explanation was the message that elections and legislative culling is how bad laws are removed. I too think he abdicated his responsibility but, he isn't wrong that we shouldn't rely on the supreme court to decide what is, I believe, the most partisan legislation in our nation's history. If we can't convince our elected officials to represent our interests then the judicial branch can't save us all by itself in a vacuum.
edit on 20-4-2014 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 05:30 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I see your point, but I still more or less interpret that as "you're on your own" from the SCOTUS when it is absolutely their place to intervene, reason being that interpretation of requirements for ratification of an amendment is a constitutional question belonging to the court and not the legislative branch. There is even room to argue that the situation is analogous to Bailey v. Alabama wherein a laborer accepted advance pay, didn't do enough work to earn it all, but could not be held guilty of fraud simply on the basis of owing for the work paid but not done.

If it is argued that because the worker never receives the money withheld for taxes that in fact he did not give the money to the government, but that instead he performed work on the government's behalf for which the government was paid directly, then that work is being done under an unconstitutional indenture- for the acceptance of the pay for labor, the worker becomes indebted to do more labor in order to pay off his taxes. If he fails to do that work, under this legal argument the debt remains valid, but the government is powerless to punish him for it because debtors prisons are abolished and there is no other crime involved, just as Bailey became innocent once the prima facie assumption of fraud was taken away, despite the fact that he did owe money.

The court can't claim the power of judicial review and then tell people that it's between them and congress- their silent consent will be understood by the other branches of government, by the people, and by future courts. The court is notoriously aware and cautious about precedent, yet they seem completely oblivious to the power of a precedent of passivity.

I wonder what exactly Scalia thinks will happen when these people do revolt. Perhaps they will come to Washington and thank him for giving them permission to do what they were going to do anyway and never bother to ask him what he did to help the cause?



posted on Apr, 20 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal They still have Aliens to worry about. Much less, rebellion.
Who knows what they are planning but last time i checked it was a ditch effort where they take all the elites and a bunch of slaves underground well the chaos ensuses about.

Who know, maybe the powers that be running this planet alien cultists who in the passed have pressed on with massive wars hoping to get a response from the beings lurking above.

When they came, they started shoot them down with anything they could find.
Then things changed, and the E.Ts started disabling all their equipment and messing with flight trainning by disrupting it.
With actions such as flying by radar, and altering planes flight paths.
Then mutiliations and abudctions.

Supposedly the gov sided with one species, But there is more than one here each with an Agenda of its own. Anyways, Our human uprising just might not even matter. Because in the end, What ever beings that are the move advanced ad strongest orbiting our planet will be enforcing its diplomacy here. And that the ensuring war that will follow from that.

I could see why bankers are shooting themselves and the Elite are panicking with their underground domaciles.
Untold horrors that is the war of the Gods. And one of these days, sometimes soon as things are escilating down here.
One of the species is going to trigger volcanos and earthquakes to try to put the Earth into a cataklysmic state.
Because at that point, all the alien species currently residing here would begin scooping up species like us. Not everyone but anyone they could find in that short ammount of time. Then after that, I wouldn't rather go into that detail.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: greencmp

I believe the words are being misused. A "revolt" by definition is NOT peaceful and civil. And something tells me that Scalia was referencing 1776 revolution "revolt" and not exactly suggesting a peaceful, civil revolt... which sounds like an oxymoron.

Based on the full article, I'd even further assume that he meant 1776 revolution and not peaceful/civil. But without actually asking him for clarification, we can only sit here and guess.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 03:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: WCmutant
a reply to: greencmp

I believe the words are being misused. A "revolt" by definition is NOT peaceful and civil. And something tells me that Scalia was referencing 1776 revolution "revolt" and not exactly suggesting a peaceful, civil revolt... which sounds like an oxymoron.

Based on the full article, I'd even further assume that he meant 1776 revolution and not peaceful/civil. But without actually asking him for clarification, we can only sit here and guess.


Revolts are always initially peaceful but, you are right that the risk of violence by the state would be significantly enhanced by a tax payer revolt which carries the possibility of a physical clash.

But no, not paying your taxes is not an act of violence.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1   >>

log in

join