So You Say You Want a Revolution? You Can Count Me Out

Below is my column in the Hill on overheated rhetoric of revolution that seems to have overtaken our public discourse, particularly with regard to the Supreme Court. This week, Arizona Democrats pushed a “F–k the Fourth Event” and told people to “Bring comfortable shoes, water, lawn chairs, posters, and your anger.”  It appears that the open secret is that we are “always angry” in the new Hulk-like smash politics.

Here is the column:

“That’s my secret. I’m always angry.” Those words from the Hulk in “The Avengers” came to mind as liberals turned on the Supreme Court this week, calling for everything from impeaching or “disciplining” justices to scrapping the entire court. That included actor Mark Ruffalo, who plays the film-version Hulk, declaring that the court is “a political tool for the extremist, fascist faction of the GOP” and “we must revolt.”

On this July 4 weekend, revolution again seems to be in the air. Even before the recent decision overturning Roe v. Wade, congressional Democrats like Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) warned the Supreme Court to reaffirm Roe or face a “revolution.”

After major rulings on gun rights, abortion and climate change, Democratic leaders and pundits declared the court to be “illegitimate.” Democratic leaders seem to have time-warped back to the time before Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when the court ruled that it must be the final arbiter of what the law means.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) not only renewed her previous call to pack the court but said the court was illegitimate for rendering decisions against “widely held public opinion.” Rep. Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) said the court “defies the will of the people.” Reporter John Haltiwanger insisted that “the court is clearly not representative of the U.S. public. It’s supposed to be the people’s court.”

In reality, the court was never meant to be that. It was meant to be the Constitution’s court, designed to be able to stand against everyone and everything but the Constitution. In a system designed to protect the minority, the court (like the Constitution) is counter-majoritarian in much of what it does.

Until Marbury, there was an argument that Congress, not the court, could be the final arbiter of what the law says. That may have been the assumption of many, given our prior English system which allowed Parliament to interpret laws. That debate ended in 1803 when Chief Justice John Marshall declared that, while silent on this point, the intent of the Framers was to make the court the ultimate, final authority of what the law means and demands.

There were good-faith reasons to challenge Marshall at the time. After the decision, he was burned in effigy by those who saw the case as changing the Constitution without an amendment, just 15 years after its ratification.

However, putting aside the basis for the decision, it helped stabilize our system. We need a body to resolve such questions with finality and authority. As Justice Robert H. Jackson wrote in a 1953 Supreme Court decision, “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.”

Soon after Marbury was handed down, a new argument emerged that seems to be a Democratic talking point today. Some early Americans declared they would simply defy what the court ruled after Marbury. For example, after the court ruled in Worcester v. Georgia in favor of the Cherokee tribe, Georgia refused to obey the court; President Andrew Jackson allegedly said, “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.”

Today, we hear the same calls for defiance. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann declared that it “has become necessary to dissolve” the Supreme Court, adding: “The first step is for a state to ignore this ruling. You’re a court? Why and how do [you] think you can enforce your rulings?”

Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) as usual put it succinctly by yelling in front of the court: “The hell with the Supreme Court. We will defy them.

These are the voices of an earlier age, returned like a dormant virus to our body politic. It has been a particularly virulent strain in the Democratic Party from Thomas Jefferson (who is viewed as a precursor to the party and opposed Marshall) to Jackson (who challenged the authority of the court) to Franklin Delano Roosevelt who sought to pack the Court. For all of the chest-pounding after Marbury, federal and state governments both yielded to the court’s authority. In some ways, it is the most impressive aspect of our constitutional system. Without an army or police force (beyond a relatively small number of marshals), the Supreme Court has compelled compliance with the support of the public. Americans believe in the rule of law; it is in our political DNA. As a people, we are often bitterly divided but we have always recognized the court’s legitimacy and authority.

If Olbermann is channeling Andrew Jackson, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez seems lately to be channeling Che Guevara. She previously questioned the court’s value, asking: “How much does the current structure benefit us? And I don’t think it does.” After the Dobbs decision, she led protesters in Washington chanting “Illegitimate!” while adding, “We have to fill the streets. Right now, elections are not enough.”

Even as armchair revolutionaries, these politicians are not very convincing. It is the rage, not the revolution, that interests them. We are becoming addicted to rage, and these leaders traffic in rage to a junkie nation.

Rage can compel action, but rarely reason. Yet President Biden clearly wants to harness his party’s anger. He has long been viewed as a politician guided more by polls than principle; that is how he could express disgust over limits on abortion despite previously maintaining as a senator that abortion is “not a right but a tragedy.”

Politicians have the luxury of just following polls — but courts do not.

Biden’s “Hulk smash” moment is evident in his reckless call to end the Senate filibuster in order to enact a federal right to abortion. Seeing shifting polls, Biden has dropped his opposition to eliminating the filibuster despite once calling such a move “disastrous” for the country. He is now intent on making that disaster a reality.

It is truly the greatest example of rage over reason. The current composition of the court is due to Democrats killing the filibuster rule on Supreme Court nominations despite warnings that it would cost Democrats dearly. When they lost the Senate majority, it cost them not just three seats on the court but the Roe ruling, too.

Now, with predictions of Democrats losing both houses, Biden is calling to end the legislative filibuster. It is akin to the Titanic’s captain spotting the iceberg and immediately ordering the lifeboats to be burned.

Such politics is only likely to increase as we approach the midterms. The current push to pack, change or dispense with the court would have even greater costs. And the greatest cost will be the erosion of faith in our system among many voters. The Constitution is an article of faith that has withstood the tests of wars, economic crises and social upheaval. It was written not only for the worst of times, but in the worst of times — and ratified over the very same objections being raised by politicians and pundits today. It requires us to take a leap of faith, not just in our system but in each other.

That is why some of us take to heart the Beatles‘ lyrics: “So you say you want a revolution … you can count me out.”

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

113 thoughts on “So You Say You Want a Revolution? You Can Count Me Out”

  1. The SCOTUS may have defined the will of Demonrats but they adhered to the letter of the law as written in the 10th Amendment.

  2. ATS writes: “Let’s see how long it takes you to censor this.”

    It was censored because the address was banned, and ATS knows it. He is setting up a false flag against Turley so he can say Turley censors, and those that read the email can then see it doesn’t exist.

    He did this against fellow bloggers a while back. Go to and look around at the posts at https://jonathanturley.org/2022/01/10/the-vaccine-mandates-the-supreme-court-considers-a-trip-to-major-questions-land/comment-page-1/#comment-2150023

    I predicted the posts later deleted. ATS entrapped others to write long posts so he could have a good laugh at their expense, when their responses disappeared.

    ATS is not a nice guy.

    1. The post that preceded this was to concerned citizen. It said.

      “Sorry. Never take screenshots. But my comments were up this morning (and many other days). Darren tracks one of my IP addresses and systematically removes posts just because I wrote them.”

      ATS has not had any traction recently, so he is going after Darren and Turley. ATS could skip using the email, pretend friend, and other aliases on his addresses that he knows will be deleted. But then, how can he complain about censorship on the blog?

  3. I have no cares for what the Beatles sang but I do care at the number of my liberal friends who are posting such despicable statements about America. The liberal political ideology has become a religion to them, they believe they are the “elect” and that they determine morality, and that they are the judge, jury, and executioner. Well – they are wrong. As they would say, there’s no room for religion in politics. Liberals need to stop hating the US … or move out.

    1. Lady Colin Campbell calls them Puritanical. (I forgot her second word, woke?) They are now our moral arbiters. She says that we haven’t had this type of muck since 1600s where they have moral control over civilization’s words. I believe this is a systematic attack against Western Civilization. The same sort who were overzealous Christians are now anti Christian and kindness and common sense. They live and thrive on heightened emotions and bile.

  4. The Democrat party and their allies in the legacy media are on a quest to recreate the glory days of the 2020 BLM riots. It may energize the radical leftists that form the core of the Democrats’ base, but the vast majority of the American people will not stand for it.

    1. Rage is fueled by adrenaline and like adrenaline, it is unsustainable and dies out quickly. The left’s rage is wearing thin on most people right and left. The radical left needs a much needed smack down, I am hopeful that will be delivered in November.

      1. I hope you are right. Unfortunately I doubt it.

        Look at what the left has gotten away with.

        WE have the collusion delussion – A Clinton driven HOAX, that ran like a wildfire through all of our institutions – even those that KNEW it was a hoax.

        The left is wigged out that Trump does not accept the results of a lawless and fraud ridden election, and is busy trying to criminalize trying to expose the lawlessness and fraud and overturn the election.

        Even if the election ACTUALLY was “perfect” which is nonsense, It still would be perfectly legal to excercise every single legal and constitutional means to “overturn” the election – Hillary did much the same in 2016. Right down to having Violent supporters mucking about in DC, and trying to persuade electors to change their votes.

        We here those on the left rant that the J6 Hearing “prove” something.

        Every bit of purported “bombshell” testimony – if true, is still NOT A CRIME. Pence says Trump tried to persuade him to do something unconstitutional. Yet it is clearly constitutional – though unlikely o succeed. Pence chose not to do what he was asked – he was free to do exactly that. But had he done what Trump asked – it STILL would not likely have gotten the results Trump wanted. Regardless, the constituion is not pro forma. If it or the law provides congress or the vice president with choices – then they are free to make choices.
        Congress picking the slates of electors to accept is a CHOICE and on rare occasions in the past they have NOT selected the electors offered by the sec. state.

        In Bush V. Gore the FL Legislature approved a slate of electors to vote for Bush prior to the case reaching the supreme court.
        The court decided to end the recount which resulted in Bush being certified the winner by the Sec. State so the legislatures electors were never needed. There were 4 votes on SCOTUS to dump the entire election issue into the hands of the FL legislature – as the constitution dictates,
        And there is a Redistricting question that SCOTUS is taking next term where 4 Justices have already suggested that as the constitution authorizes state Legislatures – not States to control federal elections – that State and Federal Courts as well as state executives have no role in elections – beyond enforcing the dictats of the legislature.

        If you are on the left you likely disagree – and that is fine. But you LIE when you claim that the solution you want is already CLEARLY the only constitutional one.

        In fact if only a single supreme court justice backs your view of how elections are conducted – You will likely lose your efforts to force a different approach, But it is Crystal clear that advocating for an approach that even a single supreme court justice believes it the correct approach can not be a crime.

        A crime requires intentionally doing something everyone knows the law and constitution prohibit, not something that there is divided opinion over.

        And this is just one of the many bits of nonsense where the left and the J6 committee argue that opposing democrats is criminal.

        It is not. At the very worst – which the left has repeatedly failed at establishing – Trump is a “sore Loser” – Like Clinton.

      2. The collusion delussion lead to a vast abuse of power.

        The left seems to beleive that government is free to investigate whoever it wants whenever it wants – so long as it does not investigate democrats.

        The hypocracy of the J6 committee and the DOJ going after Trump is beyond beleif given they impreech Trump for the “crime” of investigating a political opponent.

        Which is it – can you investigate opponents, or is it a crime ?

        The TRUTH is that you can seek and open investigations when there is reasonable suspicion that a crime occured, you can investigate a PERSON, when you have reasonable suspicion that PERSON comitted a crime.

        There NEVER was reasonable suspicion that Trump or anyone committed a crime in the 2016 election. NEVER.

        That makes the entire set of investigations that followed an unconstitutional abuse of power.

        Biden’s own remarks in 2015 create reasonable suspicion regarding Ukraine – though far more was known by 2019.

        Therefore Trump impeachment I was a massive abuse of power.

        But if investigations of political opponents is the standard – the entire J6 investigation as well as faux impeechment II are a massive democratic abuse of power.

        The hypocracy is incredible.

        And no one has faced consequences for the Collusion Delusion which actually was FAR WORSE THAN WATERGATE.

        Given the hypocracy of the left,
        Given how frequently they are Wrong.
        Given how badly they have failed in power.
        Given the hoaxes and frauds they have engaged in.

        why would anyone beleive the democrats when they say the election was not fraudulent.

        Given the actual misconduct of Democrats – why would anyone beleive they would not engage in fraud and then lie about it ?

        If you want trust – you have to behave trustworthy.

        Lying and abusing power at every oportunity is NOT trustworthy.

  5. AOC says voting is not enough. Voting is exactly enough. Yes being active in supporting your positions is important but AOC is advocating for the elimination of the filibuster and packing the Supreme Court. Voting is enough because if you present such ideas to the American people and they decide that they do not agree with your ideas the voters end up with the ultimate say. AOC wants to change the rules but she isn’t willing yo get the votes to do it. She has plainly stated that she is a socialist and the history of socialist takeovers is paved with the bodies of the dead. I’m sorry if after seeing the history of socialism in the world that I don’t see AOC as a beacon for freedom. A totalitarian with a pretty face is still a totalitarian.

    1. The filibuster isn’t part of the Constitution. The Founders considered and rejected a Senate supermajority requirement. It should be eliminated, and if there aren’t enough votes to eliminate it, then it should at least be returned to its original form.

      Voting is not enough. Voting doesn’t accomplish the following: looking out for other people’s well-being and being helpful when we can, pitching in to do good (donating, volunteering, etc.), expressing one’s views to one’s elected officials and engaging people in one’s community in discussion of important issues — but doing so in a good-faith manner (truthful, sincere, civil, …), using our minds to work on finding good solutions to problems, working out problems legally and peacefully rather than illegally and violently, educating oneself and trying to avoid false beliefs, …

        1. Mitch will happily do away with it if he thinks it would serve him, so I’d just as soon that the Democrats do away with it and actually get more done before November, “moron.”

    2. No, for AOC “elections aren’t enough” because Democrats have proven unable to win the elections they need to win. And it’s statements by people like AOC who contribute to the Democrats’ inability to win the elections they need to win.

  6. Jonathan: Some of your followers have asked me to comment on the substance of your post–not just the the Beatles “Revolution” part. So here goes. But I must digress slightly because this morning there was another mass shooting, this time in Highland Park, just outside Chicago during a 4th of July parade. Initial reports indicate 6 were killed and 24 seriously wounded by a young white male from atop a building. The shooter is still at large. The police say they have recovered a “high-powered rifle”. So now, whether in a supermarket, an elementary school or at a 4th of July parade, no one is safe anymore, The US has become one of the most dangerous places to live. All thanks to the NRA, the gun industry and the right-wing cabal on the SC that gives every red-blooded American the right to tote around a gun anytime and any place. The SC endorsed this by ignoring the clear language of the 2nd Amendment that refers to members of “militias” (like the National Guard) as the only ones with the right to “bear arms”. Scalia ignored ignored that plain language in the Heller decision and that has opened the flood gates for the conservative majority to further erode state controls of firearms. I could but I won’t go into the long history of how the 2nd Amendment was historical interpreted–not only by historians but also by the courts. So let’s get back to your post.

    You attack the Dems and liberal pundits who now question the “legitimacy” of the SC after the Dobbs decision. You say they have become
    “armchair revolutionaries”. You accuse Ocasio-Cortez of “channeling Che Guevara”. Such hyperbole does not add much to your argument. The public reaction to overturning Roe has become swift and defiant. Millions of women, and their supporters are not only “ignoring” the Court’s ruling, they are in open defiance of state abortion bans. Women are flooding to California and other sates that are providing a “safe harbor” for abortions. Women are doing this in the face of arrest and imprisonment. I call that a “revolution”. If you want to talk about “rage” we have it here in spades! Alito is also probably “outraged” that his decision is being so openly flouted. We also know there is another person in “rage”. It’s Donald Trump. That’s pretty clear from the testimony so far coming out of the J.6 Hearings. “Rage” is all around us and it’s not just coming from Rep. Ocasio-Cortez. I say get over it because there is a lot more to come. “Rage” can be a good thing if it is directed in the right direction. And I don’t mean the violent “rage” Trump and his fellow conspirators directed at the Capitol on Jan, 6. What we need is for hundreds of thousands of citizens to peacefully protest in the streets in Washington, DC, especially in front of the SC building, to demonstrate our outrage over the Court’s recent decisions. And don’t tell me the Court doesn’t pay attention to public opinion. John Roberts understands the Court is in crisis–that its “legitimacy” is under attack. Why do you think he tried to get Alito to revise his opinion in the Dobbs case? No, public “rage” through peaceful protest can make a difference. It worked in 1968 to start to bring an end to the Vietnam war. It might just work again!

    1. Dennis McIntyre:

      “So now, whether in a supermarket, an elementary school or at a 4th of July parade, no one is safe anymore, The US has become one of the most dangerous places to live. All thanks to the NRA, the gun industry and the right-wing cabal on the SC that gives every red-blooded American the right to tote around a gun anytime and any place.”
      *******************************************
      Thanks for the usual fraud, Dennis. By the way, sit this Independence Day out, will ya? We know anti-gunners like you would never have fought the British to get free. You may have tried to bore them to death but that really doesn’t count for much more than any other coward would do!

      Oh here’s a list of places more danergous than the US in 2022. We’re not even in the top 35 even though we outpopulate most of them. So lie a little lie for me, Dennis. It gets my mind off your yellow streak:

      1 Afghanistan
      2 Syria
      3 South Sudan
      4 Yemen
      5 Iraq
      6 Somalia
      7 Central African Republic
      8 Libya
      9 DR Congo
      10 Russia
      11 Pakistan
      12 Turkey
      13 Sudan
      14 Ukraine
      15 North Korea
      16 Nigeria
      17 Lebanon
      18 Israel
      19 Mali
      20 Venezuela
      21 Colombia
      22 Palestine
      23 India
      24 Mexico
      25 Iran
      26 Cameroon
      27 Chad
      28 Egypt
      29 Burundi
      30 Philippines
      31 Eritrea
      32 Zimbabwe
      33 Ethiopia
      34 Azerbaijan
      35 Saudi Arabia

      1. There are almost 200 countries in the world. Saying that we’re doing better than the bottom 35, many of which are Third World countries, is not saying much.

        1. For clarity regarding gun deaths I am forced to repeat from my notes (thanks in part to the poster whose name I forget.)

          From 2016 data

          30,000 firearms deaths (us population 324,000,000) .0009% of the pop dies from guns.
          ——
          65% suicide
          15% law enforcement justified
          17% criminal activity, drug, gang, mentally ill
          3% accidental discharge
          ——
          Technical number “gun violence” 5,100
          380 (9,4%) Chicago
          344 (6.7%) Baltimore
          333 (6.5%) Detroit
          119 (2.3%) Washington D.C.
          ——
          —–
          3,825 deaths for the rest of the nation
          75 deaths per state

          California 1,169
          Alabama 1
          ——
          Where are the strictest gun laws? California, Chicago and some other places.

          ====
          Deaths other causes:

          40,000 drug overdose (now I think exceeding 100,000)

          36,000 from the flu

          34,000 from traffic accidents

    2. The Highland Park shooter has been identified as a basket case lefty who escaped in drag and spouts socialist nonsense.

      It is absolutely true that since the start of 2020 a decade long US trend towards decreasing violence has reversed – violence in the US has increased for 3 years in a row.

      It is total bunk to claim the US is the most dangerous place in the world – it is not even close.

      It is not even true that the US has the most mass shootings per capita.

      The US is fairly middling for both violence and mass shootings.

      Over the same 4th of July weekend there were multiple mass killings in Europe.

      Further rates of violence – and gun violence in the US directly correlate to politics – the highest rates of violence are in democrat controlled cities.

      Finally in the US and through the world there is a WEAK inverse correlation between guns and violence.
      More guns – less violence. But the correlation is weak.

      There is absolutely no evidence at all that reducing guns reduces violence.
      There are several instances of the reverse.

      Autralia banned guns 2 decades before NZ did, Yet there was no diffence in the rates of violence between AU and NZ before and after the ban.,

    3. I guess we should rewrite our laws.

      people who commit crimes with guns should get LESS time –

      Because obviously it is the gun not the person that is violent.

    4. Goodness. “ Women are flooding to California and other sates that are providing a “safe harbor” for abortions. Women are doing this in the face of arrest and imprisonment.”

      Really? The SCOTUS tossed abortion to the individual states where it should be. There is no federal law against interstate travel and no state has, or will, ban its citizens from traveling elsewhere for an abortion. Your credibility is buried completely with this crap.

    1. Aninny:

      Ukraine is gone. It lost Lysychansk and the Luhansk Oblast border this week. Odessa is next and then the Black Sea is lost and finally a push to the interior by Putin. Zelensky is likely getting his plane ride to Europe in order as Kiev falls. We’re looking at another Biden disaster a la’ Afghanistan. Boy the Left is full of losers, Too bad they pulled all the statues down. They could use some role models who were winners!

        1. Careful there David, you don’t have Sec 230 immunity and saying I’m violating the FARA Act plus a whole assortment of federal criminal statutes just might get your homeowner’s carrier put on notice. So let’s call this a professional courtesy warning from an old friend. We’ll just assume you meant it as a “joke” — for now.

          1. mespo727272 — I’m here to try to learn a little about the law. What is “Sec. 230” than I don’t have immunity from? What is the FARA Act? What are the “whole assortment of federal criminal statutes”?
            Whsst does “homeowner’s carrier put on notice” mean?

            You were the one to state previously that you were a”mouth for hire”, even for the Vatican, when I previously noted that you followed the Kremlin line.

            1. He’s saying that you’re not immune from being sued for defaming him.

              Apparently he’s an unpaid mouth rather than a paid one.

  7. “Marxism is a revolutionary doctrine. It expressly declares that the design of the prime mover will be accomplished by civil war… The liquidation of all dissenters will establish the undisputed supremacy of the absolute eternal values. This formula for the solution of conflicts of value judgments is certainly not new. It is a device known and practiced from time immemorial. Kill the infidels! Burn the heretics! What is new is merely the fact that today it is sold to the public under the label of ‘science.’”

    – Ludwig von Mises, ‘Theory and History’, p. 51

    https://archive.org/details/TheoryAndHistory/page/n67/mode/2up?q=marxism

  8. Professor Turley, please stand up for the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Explain how secession was and is fully constitutional and that the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Naturalization Act of 1802 have all been ignored, nullified, abolished and abrogated by the communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs) in America since 1860. Explain how American freedom and free enterprise persisted for a mere 71 years.

    The cold hard truth is difficult, is it not?
    _______________________________

    “In Europe, charters of liberty have been granted by power. America has set the example … of charters of power granted by liberty. This revolution in the practice of the world, may, with an honest praise, be pronounced the most triumphant epoch of its history, and the most consoling presage of its happiness.”

    – James Madison, per Professor Turley
    _______________________________

    Power has reclaimed the authority to grant charters.

    Liberty has lost.

    Liberty has lost its dominion.

    Liberty has lost its convictions.

    Liberty has lost its resolve.

    Communists rule America through the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” the Deep Deep State Swamp.

    Communists command America through:

    Central Planning – employing unconstitutional tax codes, executive orders, regulation and other tools to direct American industry and consumption rather than free market demand directing free enterprise supply.

    Control of the Means of Production – employing unconstitutional enumerated regulations and departments to control design, engineering, production, and marketing of free enterprise goods and services.

    Redistribution of Wealth – ignoring and nullifying the severe limitations and restrictions on the power of Congress to tax for ONLY General welfare, not individual, specific and particular welfare as favor and charity.

    Social Engineering – unconstitutional nullification of the absolute right to private property, matriculation affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, forced busing, “fair housing” laws, “non discrimination” laws, rent control, etc.

    Liberty has been subsumed by Power – America has been subsumed by the principles of Marxism and communism.
    __________________________________________________________________________________________

    “The goal of Socialism is Communism.”

    – Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
    _________________

    “Toto, I’ve a feeling we’re not in [America] anymore.”

    – Dorothy Gale
    ____________

    Borders must be enforced.

    Illegal deportation is as legal and moral as illegal immigration.
    ________________________________________________

    Of course, there must be an American Revolution, back to the future of 1789, to the Constitution and Bill of Rights, abolishing communist one man, one vote “democracy” in the American restricted-vote republic.

    Of course, the American Revolution must take corrective action against all of the gross violations of fundamental law, U.S. statutes and U.S. codes since 1860, the Progressive inflection point toward communism.

    Of course, the dominion of the “manifest tenor” of the Constitution and Bill of Rights must be comprehensively re-implemented.

    1. The Supreme Court in Texas v White in 1869 held that States do not have a right to secede so you may want to take a look at that opinion.

      1. The Supreme Court of 1973 ruled that abortion was a right, which could not have been more wrong.

        The Supreme Court is populated by anti-American, anti-Constitution communists (liberals, progressives, socialists, democrats, RINOs).

        1869 America was under the brutal, post-war military occupation of the communist successors of Lincoln.

        The improperly ratified, unconstitutional “Reconstruction Amendments” were also rammed through in that era.

        There is absolutely no citation, by you or the esteemed Supreme Court of Texas, 1869, of the Constitution regarding the hypothesized unconstitutionality of fully constitutional secession.

        Everything Lincoln did was unconstitutional.

        The American Founders seceded from Great Britain.

        Have you ever read the Constitution; would you please cite it for a prohibition of secession?

  9. I have zero faith in the GOP, none, nada, zilch. OTOH if you are a rabid supporter of the Dimwits running the country for the last 2 years, run don’t walk to your nearest lobotomist.

  10. Waving your flag over terrirtory that you have taken. That’s so medieval. Just because you can take something doesn’t mean it is yours. I thought we were past that sort of thing in 2022.

  11. I’m not worried about a revolution from the Left. They, after all, are the one group lacking in the ability or means to carry out a revolution. Take a look at those present in DC on January 6, 2021 – they are the ones with the ability and training to stage a revolt. They didn’t. They could have but elected not to do so. Revolution means war and as the late N.B. Forrest told a reporter after the War Between the States, “War means fighting and fighting means killing.” Those hollering now don’t know how to kill.

  12. Marxists and violence

    Marx in 1848: “there is only one way in which the murderous death agonies of the old society and the bloody birth throes of the new society can be shortened, simplified and concentrated, and that way is revolutionary terror.”[1]

    Engels in 1849: “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.”[2]

    Lenin in 1917: “The state is an instrument for coercion … We want to organize violence in the name of the interests of the workers.” And in 1920: “A good Communist is at the same time a good Chekist.”[3]

    Dzerzhinsky, Cheka chief, in 1918: “The public and the press misunderstand the character and tasks of our Commission. We stand for organized terror — this should be frankly stated — dzerzhinskyfbeing absolutely indispensable in current revolutionary conditions.”[4]

    Trotsky on Stalin in 1940: “Under all conditions well-organized violence seems to him the shortest distance between two points.”[5]

    Sources:
    [1] Karl Marx, “The Victory of the Counter-Revolution in Vienna,” Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 136, November 1848.

    [2] Friedrich Engels, “The Magyar Struggle,” first published in Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 194, January 13, 1849.leggett-cheka

    [3] Vladimir I. Lenin, quoted in George Leggett, The Cheka: Lenin’s Political Police, Oxford University Press, 1987.

    [4] Felix Dzerzhinsky, press interview in early June 1918, quoted in Leggett, The Cheka.

    [5] Leon Trotsky, Stalin – An Appraisal of the Man and his Influence, unfinished manuscript published in 1941.

    https://www.stephenhicks.org/2012/10/08/marxists-and-violence/

  13. Jonathan: On this 4th of July our neighborhood is celebrating with fireworks. It started 2 days ago despite a county ordinance that prohibits the setting off of fireworks. My neighbors are defying the law! The Founders, I think, would be proud. And in public celebrations around town they will be singing the “Star Spangled Banner” based on a poem by Francis Scott Key. I don’t think many know the history of the song and why it is controversial today. So permit me to give a little history lesson.

    In the War of 1812 the British sacked and burned Washington, DC. Trump’s attempt was just the second time this has happened. The British captured Key, a 35 yr. old lawyer, and held him on a Royal Navy ship. Key witnessed the shelling of Fort McHenry but when he saw the American flag still waving the next morning over the Fort he was inspired to write the poem that became our national anthem in 1931. During the War the British engaged in the forced conscription of American sailors. They also promised refuge for enslaved Black people if they joined the British. 4,000 escaped slaves did so. This raised fears among Americans, especially slaveholders, who feared a large-scale slave revolt. Key, who supported slavery, alludes to this in his poem that has this little known verse that ends:

    “No refuge could save the hirelings and slave
    From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave,
    And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
    O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave”

    Key was a racist. He descended from a wealthy plantation family. He spoke of Black people as a “distinct and inferior race”, He only supported emancipation if slaves were immediately shipped back to Africa. During the Andrew Jackson presidency, also a racist, Key served as the district attorney for Washington, DC. where he protected slaveowner power–enforcing slave laws and prosecuting abolitionists. Key influenced Jackson to appoint Key’s brother-in-law, Roger B. Taney, as the SC Chief Justice. Taney is noted for his decision in the Dred Scott case where he decreed Black people “had no rights which the White man was bound to respect”. A statue of Taney stood outside the Maryland State House in Annapolis until 2017 when the state removed the statue after the deadly violence at the white supremacist rally in Charlottesville.

    I don’t suppose school children in Florida or elsewhere in the South will learn the true history of the “Star Spangled Banner” or about its writer Francis Scott Key. That might make them feel “uncomfortable”. But I propose we replace the song as our current national anthem with a more fitting tribute to July 4th–say Woodie Guthrie’s “This Land is Your Land”. How many out there in this chatroom will support my proposal. Let me see a show of hands.

  14. Meanwhile …

    New Zealand has declared the Proud Boys a terrorist organization, making it illegal for New Zealanders to participate in or support its activities.

  15. Jonathan: If you want to to quote the Beatles “Revolution” you should get it right–not try to mold it to fit your ideological POV. John Lennon wrote the song in 1968–inspired by the assassination of MLK and Robert Kennedy, anti-Vietnam protests in the US and Europe, the Civil Rights Movement and the rise of the Women’s Liberation movement. “Revolution” was the group’s first anti-war protest song. But McCartney had reservations about releasing the song. He was influenced by Brian Epstein, the group’s manager, who discouraged the group from expressing their political views. The Beatles were at the top of the charts and McCartney and Epstein didn’t want the group to take sides in the protests of the day. Ultimately, Lennon was forced to compromise. There were actually 3 versions of the song: “Revolution”, “Revolution 1” and “Revolution 9”. But in none of the versions will you find the phrase: “So you say you want a revolution…you can count me out”. The actual phrase is: “…but when you talk about destruction don’t you know that you can count me out”. “Destruction” is the operative word. Lennon believed in “revolution” but it should be peaceful. He was greatly influenced by the transcendental meditation teachings of Maharishi in India.

    After the song was released Lennon said: “The point is that the Establishment doesn’t really exist, and if it does exist, it’s old people. The only people that want to change it are young, and they’re going to beat the Establishment. If they want to smash it all down…then that’s what they’re going to get”. But Lennon was clear that he supported peaceful change. In 1970 he said: “If you want peace, you won’t get it with violence”. In 1980 he further explained: “If you want to change the system, change the system. Don’t go shooting people”. The most noticeable difference between the original “Revolution” and the re-recorded version is the word “destruction”. In the original version Lennon ends the phrase with “in” .That word was omitted in the later recorded version. Lennon wanted to be counted “in” when it came to revolution–he just wanted it to be peaceful. He ultimately had to compromise by taking out “in”.

    Now, if you want to be “counted out” when it comes to revolution that’s fine. But don’t misquote Lennon’s song and distort it’s meaning to suit your own purposes. Stick to the law. You are definitely not a musicologist!

    1. Denis McIntyre, you say that Professor Turley has misused the Beatles song. An important verse that you leave out is the following.

      You say you’ll change the constitution
      Well, you know
      We’d all love to change your head
      You tell me it’s the institution
      Well, you know
      You better free your mind instead
      But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
      You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

      It seems to be as clear as the nose on your face unless your myopic.
      As usual the misconstruing is being fostered by the one and only Denis McIntyre.

        1. Anonymous, then why did Lennon agree to remove the word “in” as Denis tells us? He could have just insisted that the word remain. We can surmise his position but stating it flatly is at best a reach. I asked Denis a question and I ask you the same question, what does AOC mean when she says voting is not enough? Are you willing to tell us what you think she means? This is the question of import. What say you? Will you address the heart of the mater or are you content to stay with the side topic. Please, oh please respond.

          1. John Lennon abandoned his son Julian, for Yoko Ono. Paul McCartney became Julian’s surrogate father (the song “Hey Jude” was written by Paul for Julian) because John was a narcissist who was deeply cruel and a fabulous hypocrite. It is not surprising the Act Blue trolls on here pay him homage.

            I met Yoko Ono at an HIV/AIDS Fundraiser in Miami at Vizcaya, 2004. I have a photo taken of her and me together. She appeared high out of her mind, and I was incredibly disappointed in her. I left the venue disgusted since she was the featured guest. She could not even address the crowd as scheduled. She was completely messed up. It confirmed Julian’s story about his father’s hypocrisy and lack of character, a running theme in Leftists because they are atheists. No surprise there

            John and Cynthia Lennon had Julian in 1963, when John Lennon was only twenty-three, Cynthia twenty-four, and Beatlemania beginning. By the end of the sixties, John Lennon left Cynthia for Yoko Ono with whom, as The Irish Times later wrote, he would choose to have a child: “‘Sean was the product of love,’ John Lennon is reported to have once told a young Julian. ‘You were the product of a whiskey bottle.'” It’s a very John Lennon-esque phrasing that also explains the difference in perspective Lennon developed over the thirteen year gap between the boys. It’s also a very cruel thing to say to your son, but despite singing lots about love, Lennon had a bent for cruelty. In a statement given twenty years after Lennon’s death, Julian Lennon wrote “I had a great deal of anger towards Dad because of his negligence and his attitude to peace and love. That peace and love never came home to me.” 

            https://www.grunge.com/230021/the-truth-about-john-lennons-relationship-with-his-son-julian/?utm_campaign=clip

          2. If you want to know what she had in mind, look up for yourself more of what she said. Then you won’t have to guess or ask me to guess.

            I can tell you what *I* would mean if I said that: I’d be talking about the importance of things like looking out for other people’s well-being and being helpful when we can, pitching in to do good (donating, volunteering, etc.), expressing one’s views to one’s elected officials and engaging people in one’s community in discussion of important issues — but doing so in a good-faith manner (truthful, sincere, civil, …), using our minds to work on finding good solutions to problems, working out problems legally and peacefully rather than illegally and violently, educating oneself and trying to avoid false beliefs, …

            If you want to improve the country or the world, voting isn’t enough.

            Do *you* want to improve the world?

            What actions do *you* think are important?

      1. Thinkitthrough: The verse you quote does not contradict anything in my comment. Read the literature on the history of “Revolution” and what Lennon was trying to convey in the song. The reference to “Chairman Mao” in one verse relates to the advocacy of violence by some in the anti-Vietnam war and other protests. I know because I participated in many protests in 1968, even in London, and later and saw the “Mao” t-shirts worn by some protesters. I was there and you probably weren’t. Lennon was not in favor of violence to address all the important issues of the day. But he did support the goals of the protesters–to change the system. You are the one who is “myopic”–better get a new pair of glasses! And tell “Paul” I know Epstein died in 1967. But he had an outsized influence, even after his death, on McCartney’s thinking about the image they wanted the Beatles to project–keep politics out of their songs. You and Paul are the ones “misconstruing” what Lennon was trying to say in his song!

        1. Dennis, so now you are a mind reader? You ” KNOW” how much influence Epstein had AFTER his death? I never commented on what Lennon was trying to say. So, stop putting words in my mouth. Oh wait, you are a mind reader so you must have known what I was thinking . My apologies.
          McCartney disagreed with Lennon on many things. Do you think that Epstein influenced ” Too Many People”? That was in 1971. 4 years after Epstein died.

          1. Paul: First, your apology is duly noted. Second, do you you realize how preposterous you sound? We can argue all day about Epstein’s influence on McCartney’s thinking AFTER the former’s death. Read the literature by musicologists. But to imply a person can’t have an influence AFTER their death is a doozey! A lot of people in this chatroom throw around Karl Marx’s name–they even quote him. Marx died in 1883. But his writings have had a huge influence on subsequent generations. When Mao was hiding in a cave in China he wasn’t just preparing rice for the day. He was reading Marx, Lenin, et al, voraciously! Or, what about James Madison–Turley’s hero among the Founders? Madison died in 1836. Turley would surprised to hear that a person can’t have a huge influence AFTER their death. I can’t wait to read your next non-sensical comment.

            1. Dennis, here is my ” next non- sensical reply”.

              My ” apology” was sarcasm. As I assume that your acknowledgement of it was also.
              In my original post, as stated before, I never even addressed Lennon. A fact you conveniently omit.

              Not saying that people after death cannot have influence. But I think McCartney, thinking independently, had way more influence on Lennon, the song’s writer, than a business manager who was dead. Lennon-McCartney were the most successful songwriting team in history. I realize that in the later years, songs with the (Lennon- McCartney) designation sometimes had little collaboration. Lennon was a rebel. I doubt that he was easily convinced to change one of his lyrics based on influence from a 3rd party who was dead. I would think that Lennon/McCartney had a much close relationship to each other than with Epstein. I think that you are overemphasizing Epstein’s influence on both Lennon and McCartney. Especially when it comes to songwriting. And in hindsight, he was not that great of a business manager. His record deal with Capitol was horrible. He let them give up their song rights to Northern Songs for next to nothing. His poor management did have a good outcome though. It was the impetus for the Beatles to create Apple.

              Also, interesting that you would use 3 of the most despicable people to ever inhabit the planet, (Mao, Marx and Lenin) and a Founding Father to buttress your argument regarding influence of those who have passed. Using them in conjunction with a pop music band’s business manager. I am relieved however that you did use a Founding Father. Even though it is only to point out Turley’s reverence. My guess was that using your normal ideology, the 4th member of your group would have been Alinsky or maybe Ayres.

      2. if you want money for people with minds that hate
        All I can tell you is brother you have to wait

      3. Typical leftist twaddle.

        obviously the entire song has a clear message – regardless of whether Lennon said “in” or Out on one lyric.

        Even if Lennon or the Beatles did not mean what they said – it is still truth.

    2. Dennis, Epstein died in 1967.
      Revolution was on Abbey Road was released in 1968.
      Epstein had no part in Abbey Road.

    3. Denis McIntyre, AOC says that voting is not enough. What does she mean? It would seem that she is calling for a revolution. If voting is not enough will enraged speeches be enough. What alternative do you suppose that she is calling for? 4) that still greater efforts must be made to form more fighting squads, improve their organisation, and supply them with weapons of every type; and, as experience suggests, it is necessary to form not only Party fighting squads, but also squads associated with the Party, and entirely non-Party squads; this is a quote from Lenin. Is AOC calling for anything less. Please enlighten us with your opinion of here exclamation. After all, this is the crux of the Turley post. Surely you have an opinion concerning the premise of his post instead of dwelling on the Beatles song. We await your continued wisdom.

      1. Thinkitthrough: First, don’t use my name in vain unless you spell “Dennis” correctly. It has two “n”s! On the question of voting I don’t propose to put words in AOC’s mouth. But Mark Twain, my favorite American author, famously said: “If voting made any difference, they wouldn’t let us do it”. In the 2020 election only 66.9 % of the voting-age population actually voted. Millions of people in this country have given up on voting because they don’t think it makes any difference. Many think elections are bought and sold by big money interests that ignore the views of the average American. I have a neighbor who hasn’t voted in a national election since Ronald Reagan! Voting is only one way to influence policy. Do you think the anti-abortion crowd would have accomplished over turning Roe without decades of organizing and, yes, DEMONSTRATING? And even murdering doctors and clinic workers to accomplish their goal! Again, I don’t want to speak for AOC but she is not calling for a SC justices to be killed. That’s the difference between those of us who want peaceful change and Trump and his armed followers who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6. They wanted to hang Mike Pence. They were the ones who used violence to try to accomplish their goal! Before you criticize AOC Think it Through!

  16. For those who might be confused about the Beatles position on a revolution let me offer a verse that comes later in the song.

    You say you’ll change the constitution
    Well, you know
    We’d all love to change your head
    You tell me it’s the institution
    Well, you know
    You better free your mind instead
    But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
    You ain’t going to make it with anyone anyhow

    This verse applies to those who call for a centralized government today. Most of which reside in the Democratic Party.

  17. While JT’s piece is interesting, I think he tries to weave in to many things to advance a narrative and as a result I think often his summary statements are not quite accurate or precise. For example, Biden’s support for removal of the legislative filibuster is limited to only voting rights and abortion rights legislation. Also, JT took some liberties in blaming the court composition on Democrats. The Democrats removed the filibuster only for district court and appeals court nominations — the Republicans removed the filibuster for Supreme Court nominations during the Gorsuch nomination. The Republicans are responsible for refusal to hold a hearing, vote, and consider the Garland nomination. Republicans were responsible for not following the Republican Garland precedent and quickly voting on Barrett just before election.

    1. Concerned Citizen, you left out the part where democrats discontinued the filibuster to appoint district Federal Justices. When the Democrats did so Mitch McConnell warned them that it could turn around to bite them in the butt. Granted, Garland was not afforded a hearing but no one accused him of being a drunken rapist like they did Kavanaugh. The same applies to how they treated Thomas. You know the house Negro Uncle Tom guy. Somehow you think that the Democrats will only eliminate the filibuster for voting and abortion rights. Do you ever ask what’s next? Have you ever thought out why the founders included the filibuster in the first place? It seems that the concern of the Concerned Citizen only flows in one direction

Leave a Reply to greysheeum Cancel reply