In 2000, I watched in utter amazement as the Supreme Court of the United States overturned the Florida State Supreme Court's decision to proceed with a recount of the contested ballots and the Eleventh District Court decision to uphold the decision of the Florida court. In Orwellian doublespeak, Antonin Scalia wrote on Saturday, December 9, 2000:
"the counting of the votes that are of questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to [Bush], and to the country, by casting a cloud upon which he claims to be the legitimacy of his election. Count first, and rule upon legality afterwards, is not a recipe for producing election results that have the public acceptance democratic stability requires."
It was a brazen and Orwellian declaration. What American who believes in democracy could claim that something was wrong with counting votes "first"? What American who believes in democracy could declare one candidate the winner and protect him from "irreparable harm" if a vote count showed him not to be the winner, after all? Of course, it doesn't make any sense, unless you realize the foundation upon which Scalia based his transparently partisan remarks. He doesn't believe in democracy, he doesn't even believe in republicanism, he is a monarchist.
Scalia revealed his true motivations when he spoke on the subject of capital punishment at the University of Chicago (February 2002). During his remarks, he stated: "The reaction of people of faith to this tendency of democracy to obscure the divine authority behind government should not be resignation to it, but the resolution to combat it as effectively as possible."
Democracy obscuring divine authority behind government? Perhaps this helps shed some light on why Scalia and the four other right-wing "justices" could so easily subvert our election process and, through an act of divine intervention, usher the son onto the throne lost some eight years earlier by his father, George I. We are assuming that we are still independent sovereigns and freemen as declared by our Declaration of Independence and that the Constitution is still in effect. Scalia has no such illusion. History supports his position, sorry to say.
Scalia is an ideologue so accustomed to our willingness to continue to be subjects that he does not even consider the ideal of a government of, by, and for the people. That ideal has remained as useful fiction to be taught in Civics classes and mouthed by the politicians. HE KNOWS that we are mere chattel by presumption. Since we have not even discovered that our status as freemen has been lost through more than two hundred years of our history, much less withdrawn our implied consent to be subjects, we are presumed to be subjects before the courts and in the minds of people like Scalia.
Scalia spoke of civil disobedience with contempt and quotes the Bible, "Ye must needs be subject." We must, as mere servants of the ruling class, acquiesce to our divinely guided leaders. For who are we, as mere subjects, to question those who make (or interpret) the laws? After all, he says that "government carries the sword as 'the minister of God,' to 'execute wrath' upon the evildoer." No, he has not reverted to a justice of another time-WE have by our ignorance and silence, acquiesced to a lower status reminiscent of another time.
There you have it! In his eyes, we are subjects unworthy of honor, peace and justice. Somehow Scalia's statements seem like a long way from the Declaration of Independence in which Americans stood before the world as sovereigns invested with certain inalienable rights, including the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
After the American Revolution, the monarchies of Europe saw Democracy as an unnatural, ungodly, ideological threat, every bit as radical and dangerous as Communism was regarded by Western nations upon its inception. Just as the 1917 Communist Revolution in Russia spawned other revolutions around the world, the American Revolution provided an example and incentive for people all over the world to overthrow their European monarchies. What has happened? When did we give up our natural, God-given rights? Our forefathers fought and won that war didn't they?
Yes, our forefathers fought one of the bloodiest wars in history and won their independence. They understood the historical roots of war, injustice and oppression, and we've lost this knowledge. Our history books did, indeed, leave out a lot of the truth and lied about much of the rest. History teachers often teach history in such a way that young students swear to never again study history! When I attempted to teach American History from sources outside the history books I was forced from my 26-year teaching career by my principal. We have been led and lulled to forget WHO we are. All this has been engineered by those who would keep us ignorant of the truth.