Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 103

Thread: Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, advocates mob rule government

  1. #1

    Fox News host, Tucker Carlson, advocates mob rule government

    .

    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...".



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    The "majority" of US citizens voted for Clinton to be President. It was the rules of our "Republic" that saved us from that.
    A sense of danger gives birth to fear. And fear is the time-honored cross for the crucifixion of liberty.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    The "majority" of US citizens voted for Clinton to be President. It was the rules of our "Republic" that saved us from that.

    Actually, on election day and under our representative Republic, the American People voted for electors …… not the president! Our electors then determine who was to be our next president, and they "saved us" from being stuck with crooked Hillary.


    JWK



    Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary


  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by twomp View Post
    The "majority" of US citizens voted for Clinton to be President. It was the rules of our "Republic" that saved us from that.
    Turning US into a Soviet gulag turned out to be harder than we expected. This doesn't mean we should stop trying!

  6. #5
    So if not the majority, a minority should rule. Question is- which minority? White males are still a majority group so we can't let it be them.

    If we had the exact same results but Clinton and Trump names switched would the same argument be made?

    instead of the constitutionally limited “Republican Form of Government’ which our constitution guarantees under Article 4, Section 4.
    (Article 4 discusses states- not the Federal- government.)

    https://www.theamericanview.com/q-wh...4-really-mean/

    Article 4, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution is commonly called the Guarantee Clause. It reads, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.” This clause guarantees that the federal government will assure and provide these three protections to all State governments:

    1. Republican Form of Government;
    2. Protection Against Invasion; and
    3. Protection of Legislatures and Executive from domestic Violence.


    The first assurance is more complicated because the term “Republican Form of Government” is not defined in the Constitution and was not widely written on during the Ratification Debates.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-15-2018 at 01:44 PM.

  7. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So if not the majority, a minority should rule. Question is- which minority? White males are still a majority group so we can't let it be them.

    If we had the exact same results but Clinton and Trump names switched would the same argument be made?



    (Article 4 discusses states- not the Federal- government.)
    Why don't you give us your arguments in favor of increased immigration?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Why don't you give us your arguments in favor of increased immigration?
    The Constitution does not limit immigration. In fact, it says nothing about it.

  9. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The Constitution does not limit immigration. In fact, it says nothing about it.
    LOL. Where is the debate then?



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    LOL. Where is the debate then?
    On RonPaulForums.

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    On RonPaulForums.
    Why are you not participating? How hard it is to answer a simple question. What's in it for me?

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post


    (Article 4 discusses states- not the Federal- government.)

    Article 4, Section 4's language is crystal clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government . . ."

    Keep in mind our constitution codifies this guarantee in Article 1, which vests all legislative powers being vested in a House of Representatives as distinguished from legislation being passed by a majority vote of the people ___ the latter method of adopting legislation being often referred to as mob rule government.


    JWK


    At the close of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia on September 18, 1787, a Mrs. Powel anxiously awaited the results and as Benjamin Franklin emerged from the long task now finished asked him directly, `Well, Doctor, what have we got? A republic or a monarchy?' `A republic, if you can keep it,' responded Franklin.

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The Constitution does not limit immigration. In fact, it says nothing about it.
    Stop making stuff up!


    Article 1, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


    Additionally, our federal government is charged with protecting the United States against "invasions".


    Finally, Congress is also charged with establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. And the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating immigration.

    JWK

  15. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Stop making stuff up!


    Article 1, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


    Additionally, our federal government is charged with protecting the United States against "invasions".


    Finally, Congress is also charged with establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. And the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating immigration.

    JWK
    That (Section 9) was about slaves.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-15-2018 at 05:07 PM.

  16. #14

    Question President Gary Johnson

    If the electors had decided on President Gary Johnson, the Lords Resistance Army would have been defeated in a couple of weeks, and pot would be 100% legal in the USA. But NO, they chose a NYC Totalitarian. VP Bill Weld would have been impeached too for treason in endorsing Hillary, giving aid and comfort to the enemy..
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    You only show up to attack Trump when he is wrong
    Make America the Land of the Free & the Home of the Brave again

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Stop making stuff up!


    Article 1, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


    Additionally, our federal government is charged with protecting the United States against "invasions".


    Finally, Congress is also charged with establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. And the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating immigration.

    JWK


    That (Section 9) was about slaves.



    JWK

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post


    Finally, Congress is also charged with establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization.
    JWK
    Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen if you are not already one. That says nothing about immigration.

    Finally, Congress is also charged with establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. And the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating immigration.
    Yes, Congress has passed laws concerning immigration. Writing laws is one of their Constitutional powers. But immigration itself is not specifically in the Constitution.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-15-2018 at 05:50 PM.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Actually, on election day and under our representative Republic, the American People voted for electors …… not the president! Our electors then determine who was to be our next president, and they "saved us" from being stuck with crooked Hillary.


    JWK



    Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism, Hollywood, and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

    Bound Electors have made that a difference without a distinction, Elector slates basically did as well.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    So if not the majority, a minority should rule. Question is- which minority? White males are still a majority group so we can't let it be them.

    If we had the exact same results but Clinton and Trump names switched would the same argument be made?



    (Article 4 discusses states- not the Federal- government.)

    https://www.theamericanview.com/q-wh...4-really-mean/
    In a republic the Constitution rules.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    The Constitution does not limit immigration. In fact, it says nothing about it.
    That is not true:

    Article 1 Section 9

    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  23. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Stop making stuff up!


    Article 1, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


    Additionally, our federal government is charged with protecting the United States against "invasions".


    Finally, Congress is also charged with establishing a uniform Rule of Naturalization. And the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld federal statutes regulating immigration.

    JWK
    Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

    https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    That (Section 9) was about slaves.
    It was about more than that as discussed in this thread:

    Article 1 Section 9

    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Naturalization is the process of becoming a citizen if you are not already one. That says nothing about immigration.



    Yes, Congress has passed laws concerning immigration. Writing laws is one of their Constitutional powers. But immigration itself is not specifically in the Constitution.
    Here's an article that argues that the federal government's power over immigration is based on the Law of Nations Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10:

    https://i2i.org/where-congresss-powe...on-comes-from/
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    That is not true:

    Article 1 Section 9
    See post #13. That article was about slavery. http://ashbrook.org/publications/respub-v6n1-boyd/

    This is a clause which must be carefully read and analyzed. It implies much more than a mere surface reading will bring to attention. First, the phrase "Migration and Importation of such Persons" implies the slave trade. Goods may be called imports, but if people are referred to as imports, it can mean nothing other than slavery. "e;States now existing" can mean only the original thirteen colonies which were already established at the ratification of the Constitution. This clause could not pertain to any states formed after the Constitution was established. Therefore, any territories that were later created could not participate in the importation of slaves. Also, the phrase "shall think proper to admit" implies that the states are free to choose to import slaves.

    The clause then goes on to explain that the migration or importation of slaves cannot be prohibited by Congress prior to the year 1808. However, a tax or duty can be imposed on the importation of slaves as long as it does not exceed ten dollars per person.

    The fact that Congress cannot abolish the slave trade until 1808, and also the inclusion of the tax provision, are variations or restrictions on the power of Congress. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to lay and collect taxes and duties and to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among states, and with Indian tribes. The provisions in Section 9 guard against amendment or changes to the slave trade. Otherwise Congress would have had the right to regulate the trade by the powers expressed in Section 8.

    This clause, another compromise between the North and South, indicated that "The Framers recognized that taxes might be used, properly or otherwise, to accomplish social-political purposes, and these provisions are intended to guard against the use of tax power to discourage, if not even to abolish, the international slave trade before 1808." 6 The tax provision limits the ability of Congress to control the trade and guards against the use of the tax power to either discourage or abolish slave importation. If the tax were to go above ten dollars per person, it would have been more difficult for slave owners to afford purchasing slaves. Thus the slave trade was completely protected until 1808.
    More at link
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-15-2018 at 09:23 PM.

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    See post #13. That article was about slavery.
    Why don't you look at #10?



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    See post #13. That article was about slavery.
    It isn't just about that as I prove in the linked thread.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    But immigration itself is not specifically in the Constitution.

    A​rticle 1, Section 9: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.


    Congress has power to impose a tax on persons which any of the States think proper to admit. Seems quite clear that is a reference to immigration.




    JWK

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    See post #13. That article was about slavery.
    Irrelevant. It still is a reference to "Migration or Importation" of such Persons as a State thinks proper.

    Your blanket statement was in error.



    JWK
    Last edited by johnwk; 09-16-2018 at 02:18 PM.

  32. #28
    Quote Originally Posted by johnwk View Post
    Irrelevant. It still is a reference to "Migration or Importation" of such Persons as a State thinks proper.

    Your blanket statement was in error.



    JWK
    Migration referred to the movement (trade) of slaves from one state to another. Importation referred to bringing in more slaves. If they brought in more slaves, they would be required to pay a head tax on each one of them. (I have a link above).

  33. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Migration referred to the movement (trade) of slaves from one state to another. Importation referred to bringing in more slaves. If they brought in more slaves, they would be required to pay a head tax on each one of them. (I have a link above).
    "such Persons as a State thinks proper" covers everyone and every state, not just slaves and not just slave states.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankind…it’s people I can’t stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  34. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    "such Persons as a State thinks proper" covers everyone and every state, not just slaves and not just slave states.
    Read the link I posted earlier. The article goes into more detail.

    This clause was critical to the southern states’ acceptance of the Constitution. South Carolina and Georgia persuaded the Constitutional Convention that they, along with North Carolina, would not accept the Constitution without the guarantee of the protection of the slave trade. It is just one more indication of the issues and compromises the Framers had to wrestle with in order to create and preserve the Union.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-16-2018 at 06:00 PM.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 11-14-2016, 03:42 PM
  2. Tucker Carlson Debates 9/11 Truther Radio Host
    By Zatch in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-08-2012, 07:46 AM
  3. Tucker Carlson's First Debut on FOX News
    By Knightskye in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 42
    Last Post: 05-19-2009, 06:19 PM
  4. Ron To Appear On Tucker Carlson
    By zach in forum News About The Official Campaign
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-15-2008, 01:51 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •