Scalia is really just pointing out The Declaration of Independence, which lies behind the Constitution. Patrice bandies the word "treason" about — his post title is "Justice Scalia Literally Encourages People To Commit Treason" and he ends with "apparently Justice Scalia thinks acts of treason are justified..." — so you'd think he'd have paused at some point to remember Patrick Henry's response to the cries of "Treason!"
It was in the midst of this magnificent debate, while he was descanting on the tyranny of the obnoxious Act, that he exclaimed, in a voice of thunder, and with the look of a god, "Caesar had his Brutus - Charles the first, his Cromwell - and George the third - ('Treason,' cried the Speaker - 'treason, treason,' echoed fro every part of the House. - It was one of those trying moments which is decisive of character. - Henry faltered not an instant; but rising to a loftier attitude, and fixing on the Speaker an eye of the most determined fire, he finished his sentence with the firmest emphasis) may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.I supposed if Joe Patrice had been there on the scene back in 1765, he'd have editorialized at length about the need for an apology.
ADDED: Patrick Henry had the best instant comeback to heckling in the history of the world, even before you add in that, in the end, quite a few years later, people took his advice and made the most of it.
Posts
34 comments:
For some reason the doctrinaire leftist at AboveTheLaw seems to have been getting linked a lot.
Since is it easy to guess what he is going to say about any topic, I am not sure what the point is. Just sayin'
Doesn't matter what the press says. Doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. Doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is something right. This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences. When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world — "No, you move."
Amazing Spider-Man #537
The comments abusing the author at Above The Law are hilarious.
Joe Patrice seems to forget that slavery was once constitutional. But to him moral = legal, there is nothing outside the State.
For Joe Patrice, all power flows through the state and by proxy, Joe Patrice and people who think (and vote) like him. That is why he is threatened by Scalia.
For the modern Progressive, words to live by:
Submit.
Conform.
Obey.
Scalia makes a big deal about how as a judge, he's stuck within the system of law, and he won't change it even to fix something horrible. The questioner typically pushes and pushes, resisting the feasibility of actually amending the Constitution, upping this horribleness of whatever is so horrible about the law in its current state, pressuring Scalia to say that, well, then, at that point the judge should fix what is wrong, but Scalia won't do that, he'll tell the questioner to start a revolution. It's soooo predictable in the Scalia rhetorical moves, but Patrice is somehow not getting it and trying to portray Scalia as violating judicial norms, rather than steadfastly upholding them.
I think it actually is important to remember that revolt IS an option. It really puts things into perspective: Is this injustice worth bloody revolution over, or are there alternative solution paths available that don't involve tearing the country asunder and killing our brothers and sisters?
It is supposed to a damn sobering thought that an injustice is so great to justify or necessitate that.
I clicked on the link to the source article thinking, "this will most likely be a waste of time, but if I am going to comment I need to read the article."
Turns out I was wrong. If I understand the article's author correctly, Scalia is planning an armed rebellion against the government and is attempting to recruit students into his armed militia.
Literally.
"It's soooo predictable in the Scalia rhetorical moves, but Patrice is somehow not getting it and trying to portray Scalia as violating judicial norms, rather than steadfastly upholding them."
-- It may be, to Patrice, that this IS violating the norms. He might think that if the law is bad, the judge SHOULD legislate it away from the bench, even if it is constitutional, because, social justice.
If people don't like the law in its current state, then the constitutional way to change it is via their representatives in the legislature voting for improved statuary law, NOT for the unelected, appointed-for-life, philosopher-kings in robes who believe themselves possessed of the "Vision of the Anointed."
I've been entertained recently by comments from the establishment Right and Left re the Bundy situation which so accurately restate the Tory position in response to the American Revolution. As you say, they would have been demanding the Founding Fathers apologize.
This story is probably too good to be true, but here it is. John Wilkes was accosted by an opponent who said he would die either on the scaffold or of a vile disease. Wilkes replied that that would depend on whether he embraced his opponent's principles or his mistress. That is generally acknowledged as the single greatest comeback in history. It could have happened, but it's just too great to be entirely credible.
See what happens when you think you're above the law?
Bob said...This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences.
Easy for you to say. You probably were never audited by the IRS because you said something bad about Dear Leader, or have your factory closed, inventories confiscated because you contributed to Dear Leader's enemies like the owners of Gibson's Guitar.
virgil xenophon said...
If people don't like the law in its current state, then the constitutional way to change it is via their representatives in the legislature voting for improved statuary law, NOT for the unelected, appointed-for-life, philosopher-kings in robes who believe themselves possessed of the "Vision of the Anointed."
======================
True, but the great flaw in that logic, Virgil, is the Sacred Parchment is nearly impossible to Amend these days in the face of any organized opposition on a controversial change the minority is against.
Besides the Constitution, much of the rest of the law is controlled by the Oligarchs and their lobbyists. They control the legislators and thus the laws made...
No different really than in other times in our history where the banks called the shots, the industrialist and railroad interests following.
In present day, with the Richest 1% gutting the US of jobs and able to mass import tens of millions of illegals to repress wages - all to improve profit margins..the options are as Scalia said.
1. Rely on judges of the Ruling Elites to restrain other members of the Ruling Elites.
2. Change laws as the captured (by the Elites) legislators permit...and only those laws that can pass through narrow gates created by past precedent. And hope other Elites do not summon the judges they control to overturn the laws as "unconstitutional".
3. Have a Revolution. Winners can then pass what they want, with impunity. Loyalists or Confederates or whoever the loser of the next Revolution is would have no say with their "rights" suspended - being permanently or temporarily disenfranchised.
Joe Patrice?
Click to view Joe Patrice
Joe Patrice, classic Up Puncher.
Best comeback ever:
"Sir, I do not know whether you shall die of the pox or by the gallows."
"That will depend sir on whether I embrace your mistress or your principles."
Now if we could just agree on who said it.
Macchiavelli says that a wise prince, or republic, will leave the citizens a peaceful way to redress their grievances, because otherwise they will seek a violent way.
He also recommends not to do a small injury to a citizen--either leave them alone, or hurt them so badly they are incapable of retaliating. He also recommends to leave the property and women of small citizens alone--though prominent citizens might from time to time require some pruning--and they'll put up with most other things.
“What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787
“What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Stephens Smith, 13 November 1787
Ann, thank you for the Patrick Henry story. I hadn't heard it before and it is WONDERFUL!
"This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences."
Completely false.
Many of the founders believed that slavery was wrong. They approved a constitution that made slavery legal out of expedience and compromise.
This was true on other issues, but slavery is the most dramatic example.
They were pragmatic men, and had the faults and foibles of pragmatic men.
OT: My favorite retort was:
After dinner Lady Astor presided over the pouring of coffee. When Churchill came by, she glared and said. "Winston, if I were your wife, I’d put poison in your coffee." "Nancy," Churchill replied to the acid-tongued woman, "if I were your husband, I’d drink it."
"Scalia is really just pointing out The Declaration of Independence, which lies behind the Constitution. Patrice bandies the word "treason" about — his post title is "Justice Scalia Literally Encourages People To Commit Treason" and he ends with "apparently Justice Scalia thinks acts of treason are justified..." — so you'd think he'd have paused at some point to remember Patrick Henry's response to the cries of "Treason!"
To be charitable I don't think this progressive schmuck understands what the words treason and revolution mean.
Or maybe he does and is afraid of what Scalia is inferring: a large enough movement of people getting fedup with income redistribution and forcing its end or severe curtailment.
True, but the great flaw in that logic, Virgil, is the Sacred Parchment is nearly impossible to Amend these days in the face of any organized opposition on a controversial change the minority is against."
That's not a bug, it's a feature. Otherwise we would have a federal constitution like many state constitutions that are full of nutty crap.
Joe Patrice seems to be one of those people who considers the US Constitution and the US government to be one and the same:
It doesn’t take any of the interpretive gymnastics Justice Scalia likes to bemoan to figure this means “don’t encourage people to rise up against the U.S. government.”
Of course it does take "interpretive gymnastics" to interpret Scalia's remarks that way -- it requires "enemies of the Constitution' with "enemies of the government". But of course the Constitution exists to limit government power, so the US government is quite often in opposition to it.
in re: ADDED Hear, hear!
David:
To be fair, America's founders could not fight a revolution and civil war simultaneously. If there was ever a cause for compromise, that would be it. Still, credit should be given for recognizing the moral hazard of slavery, and eventually resolving it through emancipation (and a tremendous bloodletting).
That said, the founding principles were unalienable individual rights and establishment of a limited government to secure them. People really do a disservice to themselves when they study the national organization, The Constitution, but not the national charter, The Declaration of Independence. The two documents of America's founding are inseparable and mutually reinforcing.
Cubanbob - "Or maybe he does and is afraid of what Scalia is inferring: a large enough movement of people getting fedup with income redistribution and forcing its end or severe curtailment."
==================
The Revolution comes, it will be directed at the new Aristocracy in America to force more income redistribution, not less.
Even Drudge is concerned about the shrinking middle class, the stagnant or declining standard of living for 95% of the population. The fact that the bottom 60% of Americans live significantly less well than their counterparts in other advanced nations, and upward mobility in America and educationl attainment k-12 is among the lowest in the advanced nations community.
All while the upper 5% in America, effected less than any other Elite in any comparable Western or Asian advanced nation with income redistribution - lives the best of any national elite...
The Revolution comes, cubanbob, it will be similar to the Latin Am ones that reined in oligarchies.
Actually, there is absolutely no relationship whatever between the Declaration and the Constitution. The Declaration was merely a piece of political propaganda designed to attract the support, or at leat mitigate the hostility of monarchial Europe, whereas the Constitution is the fundamental law of the nation. One has nothing to do with the other.
I read through the comments associated with Mr. Patrice's column. Hilarious!! Tread lightly, and wear asbestos underpants because it's warm in that kitchen.
I'm sure our hostess would love to swap her set of commenters for the Above The Law commenters.
Actually, there is absolutely no relationship whatever between the Declaration and the Constitution.
Of course there's a relationship. Regardless of how it was used, the Declaration laid out the basic principles upon which this country was founded. It's an ideal that segues very nicely into the Constitution. When you read the Declaration of Independence, you can see the mindset of the same men who then wrote the United States Constitution.
That simply in't true. The framers almost never mentioned the Declaration during the convention, whereas they constantly referred to the British system of government. If anything, it was the British Constitution that influenced the mindset of the framers, not the Declaration.
Post a Comment