Fox "News" Reveals Its True Colors In On-Air Attack On the Constitution

[Ian David]

Fox News Reveals Its True Colors In On Air Attack On the Constitution

On Fox and Friends today, Fox News argued against liberty and freedom with a claim that the Constitution is too outdated to handle the war on terror. Gretchen Carlson said, “Ok, well back in the 1700s and 1800s, we didn’t have this thing called the war on terror where you have to get to the bottom of things quickly.”

Fox News had on contributor former judge Andrew Napolitano to discuss the Constitution and the Patriot Act. Napolitano said, “I feel like I’m shoving against the tide when it comes to the Patriot Act, although there were 26 Republicans who voted against it. Here’s the problem with that. The Constitution says if the government wants to read your mail, or look at your business records, or listen to your phone calls it has to go to judge present evidence that you’ve done something wrong. The fancy phrase is probable cause, and if the judge agrees, the judge will authorize the government to do that. The Patriot Act lets the government bypass the Constitution.”

Napolitano was interrupted by Steve Doocy who tried to say that the Patriot Act doesn’t bypass the Constitution, just the judge. Napolitano straightened him out, “Bypass the Constitution by letting federal agents write their own search warrants.”

Gretchen Carlson made the Fox News argument that the constitution to too outdated to fight the war on terror, “Ok, well back in the 1700s and 1800s, we didn’t have this thing called the war on terror where you have to get to the bottom of things quickly and if we wait, people argue, to go to a judge then sometimes that terrorist could already do the dirty deed.”



More:
http://www.politicususa.com/en/fox-news-constitution

Hat-tip to: http://twitter.com/billieraven/status/37559135780208640

[rfranklin]

1. Yet they cannot provide any examples of the "24" scenario...

where Jack Bauer saves America just in the nick of time because he bypassed the Constitution.

[blockhead]

2. Wretchen and Doocbag

I can't believe they let these two have their own show.

[Johonny]

3. There were hardly any wars on American soil back in the 1700s and 1800s

[wysimdnwyg]

6. Yep. Hardly any.

1702-1713 Queen Anne's War (War of Spanish Succession) The English Colonies vs. France
1744-1748 King George's War (War of Austrian Succession) The French Colonies vs. Great Britain
1756-1763 French and Indian War (Seven Years War) The French Colonies vs. Great Britain
1759-1761 Cherokee War English Colonists vs. Cherokee Indians
1775-1783 American Revolution English Colonists vs. Great Britain
1798-1800 Franco-American Naval War United States vs. France
1812-1815 War of 1812 United States vs. Great Britain
1813-1814 Creek War United States vs. Creek Indians
1836 War of Texas Independence Texas vs. Mexico
1846-1848 Mexican-American War United States vs. Mexico
1861-1865 U.S. Civil War Union vs. Confederacy
1898 Spanish-American War United States vs. Spain

From http://americanhistory.about.com/library/timelines/bltimelineuswars.htm

[nadinbrzezinski]

13. You and your book learnin'

:hi:

Well done

And you did miss a few... all them American Indian wars that are missing from that list. (in the 1870s-90s mostly)

[Bandit]

4. If the Constitution is too outdated for privacy it is too outdated for gun ownership.

In fact it is just plain too outdated so we need a Republican Decider.. someone that will know when it is OK to torture or bypass the Legal establishment.. A Republican Dream Government.. someone we could call Emperor or Tzar...

[Sal Minella]

5. Great post.

If it is "outdated," where does that leave the "Originalists" on the Supreme Court (Scalito, etc.)?

You guys can't have it both ways, Foxy though you are . . .

[damntexdem]

7. I wonder whether they include the 2nd Amendment in that outdated part.

jus sayin

[Shandris]

8. Time for Constitutional Convention II. I'm in favor.

And THIS time, let's get a statement of INTENT about every single section in the damn thing, and preferably in the legal code as well. (No, not 'intent' like Minority Report Pre-crime. :) But when a law is crafted (say, Health Care) where the intent is stated, then attempting to use a technicality to get around the 'intent' is just as criminal as actually ignoring the intent. Handles a solid 90% or so of corporate crime right off the top.)

[walldude]

9. You know what? She's right..

That freedom of the press thing is too much. Somebody take away her show. Shut her up. Close her down for good. After all, when the Constitution was written we didn't have this "War on The Truth" that Fox is waging, we didn't have TV where Fox News personalities could go on daily and lie to the American people freely and fully without any repercussions.

[pacalo]

10. What qualifications does this bimbo have to contradict a former judge on the law?

How many Fixed News viewers were able to see through the gall & arrogance of that woman. If they weren't able to find a qualified guest to debate the judge then why have the segment at all.

[Mimosa]

11. Napolitano may be on Fox but he's not as stupid as the rest of them.

Steve Doocey is a dufus, first class.

[tanyev]

12. Hey, Gretchen's a judicial activist!

[PerpetuallyDazed]

14. I may be young but I remember when "dirty deed" used to refer to something other than

terrorism. Fox News, you're already subverting our culture. Why pervert our language, too?