Fox News Has Forgotten About The Constitution
Earlier this week, Jon Stewart raked Fox News over the coals for the way it tossed out the Constitution in its discussions about Dzhokar Tsarnaev:
FILED UNDER: Law and the Courts, Terrorism, US Politics, Daily Show, Facebook, Fox News, Jon Stewart
To be fair to FoxNews, most Americans have no clue as to what’s in the Constitution. They know that there seems to be reference to “freedom of speech” and “freedom of religion” and even “a right to bear arms”
The value of ‘x’ =
(usefulness as cudgel v. Democrats) * (courtier media promotional potential) _____________________________________________________
(ratings for News Corp ad sales) * (GOP fundraising) + (personal enrichment)
where ‘x’ may equal the Constitution, a speech, a news event, etc.
“The Constitution” is a simple, fungible calculus within today’s conservatism.
Fox news is populist … film at 11?
(This does highlight that they are not too discerning though, and cater to the dark side of populism when it suits them.)
As you well know there is no such thing as a Miranda right in the Constitution, it’s merely a procedural rule, that if violated, permits a defendant to move for suppression of incriminating evidence. In the Boston bombing case, with the literally thousands of pieces of photographic, eyewitness and physical evidence that are available, nothing out of the defendant’s mouth will be needed to convict him. The wise choice would have been to put security to the forefront by continuing the interrogation, forgoing use of the Tsarnaev’s statements in the criminal trial. This tradeoff was discussed frequently on Fox News and is nowhere mentioned in Stewart’s out of context sound bites. The joker is a joke.
@al-Ameda: To be fair to FoxNews, most Americans have no clue as to what’s in the Constitution.
Tell me about it. Just the other day on another thread, some idiot tried to tell me that the Constitution promoted “multiculturalism.”
@Let’s Be Free: Stop at torture or the full waterboard treatment?
@Jenos Idanian #13:
That was me you f’n idiot and if you weren’t so stupid you would start with the 1st Amendment and move on from there to the 13th, the 14th, the 15th, the 19th, the 24th and the 26th. But I am not surprised at your inability to comprehend the real world consequences of those amendments. You don’t live in the real world.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Multiculturalism? Actually it does , check the Tenth Amendment:
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
It’s all right there.
@Let’s Be Free:
Shorter GOP: We can torture people as long as we don’t plan on using their statements at trial. Who cares about the civil rights violation?
I wonder what T.J. and Sam Adams would say about that line of thinking.
@OzarkHillbilly: The Constitution, as we have been so often told, was written by white men and enshrined slavery. Non-whites and women were excluded.
It was also written in English, with no other languages offered.
The closest thing to “multiculturalism” in the entire Constitution — and that’s dismissing the Amendments that I listed first as real stretches — is in the 1st Amendment, where the federal government is forbidden from establishing a state religion, or prohibiting any religions.
And note that it didn’t “celebrate” the diverse faiths, it “tolerated” them.
But “multiculturalism,” as it’s defined today? Forget that. White men only, baby — especially property owners. Women, other races — know your place. Gays? Get real. Assimilation was the key term, a “melting pot” that blended all the old stuff we all left behind (mainly from Europe), kept the stuff worth keeping, and trashed the rest. You wanna celebrate your culture? Go back there and do it. If it was so damned wonderful, why the hell did you leave?
So, I repeat my challenge: cite Articles and Sections in the Constitution that promote “multiculturalism,” and describe just how those cultures are being promoted.
I could use a few laughs.
@al-Ameda: The 10th Amendment isn’t about “promoting multiculturalism,” it’s to provide a check on the power of the federal government. And besides, as I recall, saying nice things about the 10th Amendment and State’s Rights is the same as supporting slavery or something. At least, that’s what I hear from the left whenever it’s been brought up.
I always find it interesting that those who are the strongest proponents of the 2nd Amendment are usually also the most likely to want the government to be “flexible” when it comes to rights afforded by some of the other parts of the Constitution … well, as long as we’re talking about when those rights are invoked by others that is.
@Todd: You DO understand that the bomber wasn’t denied his rights, right? He was just denied being told of his rights. And the legal sanction for that is usually the exclusion of anything he says in any prosecution of him.
So, no biggie. Acceptable tradeoff. Bomb Boy doesn’t suffer any adverse effects of being denied his Miranda reading, and we get to ask him about other bombs and other conspirators. So we can’t use it in court? Big whoop. We got tons of other evidence; we don’t need whatever he might admit to.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Yes, I do understand, I’m not stupid, but thanks for your concern. 🙂
Actually though, I wasn’t even commenting on the Boston case in particular. This is an ongoing phenomena … not something that just started popping up last week.
What’s really ironic is that no matter how extensively one exercises their 2nd Amendment rights, they will never be able to “outgun” the government. It’s our collective support for the rights afforded by the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th Amendments which really stand between average citizens and “tyranny”.
If we ever arrive at the consensus that those rights don’t matter when someone is especially “bad”, we’ll have also made them pretty much meaningless for the rest of us too.
@Todd: Sorry, but your original comment was vague enough that I thought it was about the Boston bomber.
But one sentiment you said sounded kind of familiar…
If we ever arrive at the consensus that those rights don’t matter when someone is especially “bad”, we’ll have also made them pretty much meaningless for the rest of us too.
In a sense, that’s what I am arguing about the Donald Trump/WHCA dinner incident. Oh, it’s on a far lesser scale, but the sentiment is the same: the way he was treated was reprehensible, but since it was Trump, no biggie.
@Jenos Idanian #13:
Ummm, I’m talking about Constitutional rights, and you’re talking about Donald Trump being made fun of. I don’t see how these two things are in any way similar, even “in a sense” or “on a far lesser scale”.
@Todd: This is Jenos M.O. You corner him with facts, and he changes the subject abruptly to something utterly unrelated. The bait n switch, which works if no one is recording your words for, say, all time. This is but one symptom of him having no idea what he’s actually mad about, if anything. It may be just plain mad. As in, bring in the Hatter.
The constitution is otherwise irrelevant to him.
@James in Silverdale, WA:
Look, especially in recent months Jenos has decided to refocus on trolling. Generally speaking, even in posts where he’s making a broader point, he always adds something in that’s extremely provocative in order to see how many people he can get to bite — i.e. react in a knee jerk way.
Facts, generally speaking, don’t matter, because he isn’t really interested in a discussion. He rarely responds to people who address the substantive part of what he writes.
Instead, he gleefully waits for the provocative stuff to generate responses and then keep the comments coming – in other words, making “liberals” jump.
That includes some presidents.
“The Constitution, as originally intended by the framers, is itself tough on crime and protective of the victims of crime.” — Ronald Reagan, speech to CPAC, 1988