CDZ Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, advocates mob rule government

[johnwk]

.

I’m not sure if Tucker Carlson actually supports “democracy” in its classical sense ___ which is comparable to mob rule government ___ or he simply hasn’t taken the time to learn the fundamental differences between our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” and that of a democracy in which a majority of what the people want they should get, i.e., mob rule government!


Let us listen to Tucker Carlson’s VERY OWN WORDS and you decide what he wants.


“I want a democracy where the majority of voters get to decide what their country does.”


This is the classic definition of a “democracy” as distinguished from our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives, restrained by a written Constitution, set public policy.


Perhaps Tucker Carlson, and other hosts on Fox News Channel, who constantly refer to our system of government as a “democracy”, will expound upon their referencing our system as a “democracy” instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4.


JWK


John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...".

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The majority of voters determine what the country does as expressed by their elected representatives, provided that the laws and measures voters seek to enact comport with the Constitution and its case law.

And when the people err and enact laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, those laws and measures are invalidated by the courts.

The genius of our Constitutional Republic is that the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, where the Constitution and its case law protect the rights and protected liberties of the people from the fear, ignorance, and hate of voters and their elected representatives.

 

[caddo kid]

I was under the impression that Tucker was born in a coal mine, in Kentucky, or West Virginia.

That would explain some of Tucker's issues.

EDIT:

I see Tucker was born in San Francisco so, I guess he ate too much of the brown acid.

It seems Tucker was also on a 2006 episode of Dancing With the Stars.

Oh, my; and I thought Tucker was straight. Come out of that closet Tucker.

 

[johnwk]

The majority of voters determine what the country does as expressed by their elected representatives, provided that the laws and measures voters seek to enact comport with the Constitution and its case law.

.

So, are you agreeing that Tucker Carlson, by his very own words, is advocating a system of government contrary to our constitutionally limited "Republican Form of Government"?

JWK



Democrat Party Leadership's offer for free government cheese is really not free. It first addicts and then enslaves participants on an iron fisted socialist run plantation.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Majority rule, minority rights. It has been that way in America since there was an America. We accomplish that by counting votes to see what the majority wants.

 

[JLW]

Tucker has always been as stupid a commentator as I have ever heard. He was a moron from years ago.. The Constitution and its protections are for the benefit of the minority via the establishment of a legal framework and a rule of law. But of course the mass of bobble headed conservative blowhards who are self professed constitutional experts already knew this.

 

[Natural Citizen]

.

I’m not sure if Tucker Carlson actually supports “democracy” in its classical sense ___ which is comparable to mob rule government ___ or he simply hasn’t taken the time to learn the fundamental differences between our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” and that of a democracy in which a majority of what the people want they should get, i.e., mob rule government!


Let us listen to Tucker Carlson’s VERY OWN WORDS and you decide what he wants.


“I want a democracy where the majority of voters get to decide what their country does.”


This is the classic definition of a “democracy” as distinguished from our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives, restrained by a written Constitution, set public policy.


Perhaps Tucker Carlson, and other hosts on Fox News Channel, who constantly refer to our system of government as a “democracy”, will expound upon their referencing our system as a “democracy” instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4.


JWK


John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...".

Thank You. I've been saying this like forever.

 

[Natural Citizen]

From a great book on the topic. The American Ideal of 1776 - The Twelve Basic American Principles.


An Important Distinction: A Democracy versus A Republic

It is important to keep in mind the difference between a Democracy and a Republic, as dissimilar forms of government. Understanding the difference is essential to comprehension of the fundamentals involved. It should be noted, in passing, that use of the word Democracy as meaning merely the popular type of government--that is, featuring genuinely free elections by the people periodically--is not helpful in discussing, as here, the difference between alternative and dissimilar forms of a popular government: a Democracy versus a Republic. This double meaning of Democracy--a popular-type government in general, as well as a specific form of popular government--needs to be made clear in any discussion, or writing, regarding this subject, for the sake of sound understanding.

These two forms of government: Democracy and Republic, are not only dissimilar but antithetical, reflecting the sharp contrast between (a) The Majority Unlimited, in a Democracy, lacking any legal safeguard of the rights of The Individual and The Minority, and (b) The Majority Limited, in a Republic under a written Constitution safeguarding the rights of The Individual and The Minority; as we shall now see.



A Democracy

The chief characteristic and distinguishing feature of a Democracy is: Rule by Omnipotent Majority.

In a Democracy, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.

This is true whether it be a Direct Democracy, or a Representative Democracy.

In the direct type, applicable only to a small number of people as in the little city-states of ancient Greece, or in a New England town-meeting, all of the electorate assemble to debate and decide all government questions, and all decisions are reached by a majority vote (of at least half-plus-one). Decisions of The Majority in a New England town-meeting are, of course, subject to the Constitutions of the State and of the United States which protect The Individual’s rights; so, in this case, The Majority is not omnipotent and such a town-meeting is, therefore, not an example of a true Direct Democracy.

Under a Representative Democracy like Britain’s parliamentary form of government, the people elect representatives to the national legislature--the elective body there being the House of Commons--and it functions by a similar vote of at least half-plus-one in making all legislative decisions.

In both the Direct type and the Representative type of Democracy, The Majority’s power is absolute and unlimited; its decisions are unappealable under the legal system established to give effect to this form of government. This opens the door to unlimited Tyranny-by-Majority. This was what The Framers of the United States Constitution meant in 1787, in debates in the Federal (framing) Convention, when they condemned the "excesses of democracy" and abuses under any Democracy of the unalienable rights of The Individual by The Majority.


A Republic

A Republic, on the other hand, has a very different purpose and an entirely different form, or system, of government. Its purpose is to control The Majority strictly, as well as all others among the people, primarily to protect The Individual’s God-given, unalienable rights and therefore for the protection of the rights of The Minority, of all minorities, and the liberties of people in general. The definition of a Republic is: a constitutionally limited government of the representative type, created by a written Constitution--adopted by the people and changeable (from its original meaning) by them only by its amendment--with its powers divided between three separate Branches: Executive, Legislative and Judicial. Here the term "the people" means, of course, the electorate.

The people adopt the Constitution as their fundamental law by utilizing a Constitutional Convention--especially chosen by them for this express and sole purpose--to frame it for consideration and approval by them either directly or by their representatives in a Ratifying Convention, similarly chosen. Such a Constitutional Convention, for either framing or ratification, is one of America’s greatest contributions, if not her greatest contribution, to the mechanics of government--of self-government through constitutionally limited government, comparable in importance to America’s greatest contribution to the science of government: the formation and adoption by the sovereign people of a written Constitution as the basis for self-government.

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's a very interesting article from The Atlanitic.
It's a longer read, so if you are lazy, can't concentrate, or intellectually challenged, I expect it won't be read.
America Is Living James Madison’s Nightmare

 

[johnwk]

Thank You. I've been saying this like forever.

And so have our Founders!

Madison, in Federalist No. 10 says in reference to “democracy” they


…have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.


And during the Convention which framed our federal Constitution, Elbridge Gerry and Roger Sherman, delegates from Massachusetts and Connecticut, urged the Convention to create a system which would eliminate "the evils we experience," saying that those "evils . . .flow from the excess of democracy..."


And, then there was John Adams, a principle force in the American Revolutionary period who also pointed out "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel..."


And Samuel Adams, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and favoring the new Constitution as opposed to democracy declared: "Democracy never lasts long” . . . "It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself.". . . "There was never a democracy that ‘did not commit suicide.’"



And during the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton stated: "We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy."



And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who informed a crowd when exiting the Convention as to what system of government they created, he responded by saying "A republic, if you can keep it."


Democracy, or majority rule vote, as the Founding Fathers well knew, whether that majority rule is practiced by the people or by elected representatives, if not restrained by specific limitations and particular guarantees in which the unalienable rights of mankind are put beyond the reach of political majorities, have proven throughout history to eventually result in nothing less than an unbridled mob rule system susceptible to the wants and passions of a political majority imposing its will upon those who may be outvoted, and would result in the subjugation of unalienable rights, and especially rights associated with property ownership and liberty. And so, our Founding Fathers gave us a constitutionally limited Republican Form of Government, guaranteed by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States.

JWK

The unavoidable truth is, the Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’, Andrew Gillum and Ayanna Pressley's socialist plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.

 

[sakinago]

The majority of voters determine what the country does as expressed by their elected representatives, provided that the laws and measures voters seek to enact comport with the Constitution and its case law.

And when the people err and enact laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, those laws and measures are invalidated by the courts.

The genius of our Constitutional Republic is that the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, where the Constitution and its case law protect the rights and protected liberties of the people from the fear, ignorance, and hate of voters and their elected representatives.

Surprisingly I agree with Clayton jones on this one. That’s how it’s supposed to work, but it’s not what’s happening today in some crucial aspects of government (and the past 40 or so years, probably longer). I don’t think it’s fair to say that Carlson believes in mob rule just from that statement alone. He could just mean that elected officials should act in a way that their constituents want, within the confines of the constitution. He just didn’t feel the need or overlooked the need to clarify that. One can get angry at a politician for not doing what they promised while campaigning, and still not have to clarify, within the powers granted by constitution.

I agree we are a constitutional republic, and that it is an important distinction to make from democracy, that’s not currently being made.

 

[Picaro]

I think he's referring to the anarchy we have now, with judges determining which laws are enforceable based on their own whims now, and a Congress that has been negligent in performing its duties and allowing much of its power to be usurped by Federal courts.

As for the Constitution it was finally dead in 1861, put to death by Lincoln and big business. Anybody claiming it has any genuine function now besides propaganda value is delusional; its all decided by partisan hacks, not any principles of law or morality. We're an oligarchy, not much different than Putin's Russia, and the only conflicts are between power blocs battling each other to control the Party system. Almost no one votes based on Constitutional principles, they vote on selfish interests alone, and many of them are stupid and have no idea what the government does or how it works, which is why their wants are mostly ignored between election cycles, and rightfully so.

Selectively cherry picking quotes form the 'Founders' is a waste of time; they were politicians, too, and their rhetoric just as meaningless, regardless of how grand they sound few of them believed in what they were saying and didn't practice what they preached..

 

[Rando Caucasian]

Any government is mob rule. Grow up dipshit.

 

[longknife]

I wonder if anyone has bothered to cite EVERYTHING Tucker said in this particul interview?

 

[Crepitus]

.

I’m not sure if Tucker Carlson actually supports “democracy” in its classical sense ___ which is comparable to mob rule government ___ or he simply hasn’t taken the time to learn the fundamental differences between our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” and that of a democracy in which a majority of what the people want they should get, i.e., mob rule government!


Let us listen to Tucker Carlson’s VERY OWN WORDS and you decide what he wants.


“I want a democracy where the majority of voters get to decide what their country does.”


This is the classic definition of a “democracy” as distinguished from our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives, restrained by a written Constitution, set public policy.


Perhaps Tucker Carlson, and other hosts on Fox News Channel, who constantly refer to our system of government as a “democracy”, will expound upon their referencing our system as a “democracy” instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4.


JWK


John Adams was absolutely correct when he pointed out that "democracy will envy all, contend with all, endeavor to pull down all; and when by chance it happens to get the upper hand for a short time, it will be revengeful, bloody, and cruel...".

Lol, democracy is not "mob rules". That's pretty much what tRumo is trying to do.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The majority of voters determine what the country does as expressed by their elected representatives, provided that the laws and measures voters seek to enact comport with the Constitution and its case law.

And when the people err and enact laws and measures repugnant to the Constitution and its case law, those laws and measures are invalidated by the courts.

The genius of our Constitutional Republic is that the people are subject solely to the rule of law, not men – as men are incapable of ruling justly, where the Constitution and its case law protect the rights and protected liberties of the people from the fear, ignorance, and hate of voters and their elected representatives.

Surprisingly I agree with Clayton jones on this one. That’s how it’s supposed to work, but it’s not what’s happening today in some crucial aspects of government (and the past 40 or so years, probably longer). I don’t think it’s fair to say that Carlson believes in mob rule just from that statement alone. He could just mean that elected officials should act in a way that their constituents want, within the confines of the constitution. He just didn’t feel the need or overlooked the need to clarify that. One can get angry at a politician for not doing what they promised while campaigning, and still not have to clarify, within the powers granted by constitution.

I agree we are a constitutional republic, and that it is an important distinction to make from democracy, that’s not currently being made.

Technically America is a compound Republic. Each state being a single Republic, each with the full powers of a Republic with the federal Republic having limited powers.

And until someone finds judicial review in Article III, case law isn't germane. Be careful what you're agreeing with. Respectfully. It'll get you bit in the long run. Though, certainly you're free to draw your own view, however you wish. C_Clayton is a statist and a horrible representative when it comes to defining the proper role of government. The Judiciary does not have veto power over the Congress. Not yesterday. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. Though, C_Clayton is free to dream in his statist utopia all he wants.

Any decision in any case is limited by the facts involved and constitutes only "the law of the case," binding merely the parties to the case. This is true as to all cases and all courts, including the Supreme Court.

 

[Windparadox]

`
Tucker espouses the classic definition of a “democracy” as distinguished from our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives, restrained by a written Constitution, set the public policy. What disturbs me about Tucker's comment is, if 51 percent of the people in America want to grant amnesty to illegal entrants, they should get what they want and we should ignore our Constitution and the rule of law.

Perhaps Carlson, and other talking heads on Fox News Channel, who constantly refer to our system of government as a “democracy”, will expound upon their referencing our system as a “democracy” instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4.
`

 

[Natural Citizen]

`
Tucker espouses the classic definition of a “democracy” as distinguished from our constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government” in which our elected representatives, restrained by a written Constitution, set the public policy. What disturbs me about Tucker's comment is, if 51 percent of the people in America want to grant amnesty to illegal entrants, they should get what they want and we should ignore our Constitution and the rule of law.

Perhaps Carlson, and other talking heads on Fox News Channel, who constantly refer to our system of government as a “democracy”, will expound upon their referencing our system as a “democracy” instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4.
`

zacly.

 

[Pilot1]

I haven't watched Fox News in a long time, but remember Carlson as one of the better hosts. It is an opinion show, and that is his opinion in which I strongly disagree. Pure Democracy IS MOB RULE, and that is NOT what the Founders intended, nor what made this country great. We are a Constitutional Representative Republic, NOT a Democracy.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I never liked Tucker anyway after that crap he pulled on us back in 08 or 09, I forget when it was. He can't be trusted. Never let him into one of your events. He'll stab ya in the back in a hot minute.