Media Doesn't Care About The Constitution Either

I had a discussion with a local columnist, Reginald T. Dogan, over my amazement at the silence from the media in how our President is running roughshod over the U.S. Constitution.

Here’s the premise. The election is over, and what we are seeing is the fastest slide from freedom and free-market capitalism in history. Through legislation, this administration has trashed the very documents it is sworn to protect and defend. In less than 100 days, President Obama (the Constitutional lawyer) has managed to re-write the Constitution without laying a pen on it.

My question to him was simple. How can the administration be doing all of this with NOT ONE question from the media as to whether it is constitutional?

His answer was just as simple. He said, ‘nobody cares about the Constitution.’ To which I said, EXACTLY. After 233 years of constitutional government, this shift to expand government control by this administration isn’t news?

Surely the media sees this, likes it, and thinks nothing else of it. It’s Journalistic malpractice to watch this happen while half the country is either unaware or does not care. Whether they’re all idiots doesn’t matter. What should matter to the media, which has special protection under the Constitution, is to inform the people what this administration is doing, and to put it in the context of the last 233 years of our history. Not the last 100 days. Unfortunately for America, this shift to socialism isn’t Obama’s fix for our economic troubles. It is his plan.

Since ‘nobody cares about the Constitution’ any more, do you think the media would mind losing the constitutional protections given it?

related links: Obama’s First 100 Days | No Conflict Of Interest For Obama

0 thoughts on “Media Doesn't Care About The Constitution Either”

  1. “I see that as the opposite. I see it as performing the duties of the Constitution, to protect and defend not only its citizens, but the Constitution itself.”

    So it’s okay to ignore parts of the Constitution if it disrupts terrorist organisations and maybe saves lives? What is the threshold? Is it okay to ignore the Constitution if it saves 1,000 lives? 500? 100? 10?

    I am serious. From the beginning Fox News placed an emphasis on big shiny graphics and oversimplified text captions “explaining” issues. They have helped reduce television journalism to the regurgitation of talking points. Mayyybe they didn’t start the trend, but they certainly perfected it.

    I think that the difference between you and I on this issue is that you think the media is involved in some kind of big cover-up where they’re intentionally staying hush-hush about Obama moving things to the left; I think that the American PEOPLE have shifted to the left, as evidenced by the 2006 elections, and this is wanted change. This is simply a conservative minority not yet realising/accepting that they are a minority.

    It’s kind of ironic, really, because if the previous administration hadn’t made things so bad for people, I don’t think this ideological change would have happened.

    🙂

    1. So it’s okay to ignore parts of the Constitution if it disrupts terrorist organisations and maybe saves lives? What is the threshold? Is it okay to ignore the Constitution if it saves 1,000 lives? 500? 100? 10?

      No. I’m not saying ignore the Constitution. There are two things involved.

      One is the terrorists that we are after are not citizens and therefore have no rights or protections of our Constitution. Second, we are at war with them because they are at war with us, and some of them are inside this country. Just being inside this country does not prevent us from using all tools possible to get them. Another way to look at it, under these circumstances is this; the U.S. Constitution is not a suicide pact.

      you think the media is involved in some kind of big cover-up where they’re intentionally staying hush-hush about Obama moving things to the left;

      No. It’s not a cover-up in the sense that there is some tinfoil hat conspiracy. They’re joined at the hip. They served as his PR wing of his campaign and remain so today. There’s no plan. They just support him and his ideas. They do it by reporting him for what he says and how well he says it, and list all the problems he says he wants to fix. They support him also by not mentioning the effects of what he is actually doing. Creating a shift to socialism in this country under the guise of a necessary and temporary economic fix.

      Their inability to separate their own politics with their constitutionally given right as a free press, independent of political influence (ha, right), is my big problem with the media.

      Unfortunately for America, this shift to socialism isn’t Obama’s fix for our economic troubles. It is his plan.

  2. And another thing. 🙂

    The fact that Obama has taken this country on a leftward tack in a big way doesn’t need investigating. It’s out there and all over and indisputable.

    Surely the media sees this, likes it, and thinks nothing else of it. It’s Journalistic malpractice to watch this happen while half the country is either unaware or does not care. Whether they’re all idiots doesn’t matter. What should matter to the media, which has special protection under the Constitution, is to inform the people what this administration is doing, and to put it in the context of the last 233 years of our history. Not the last 100 days.

  3. ‘How about Bush started it when he began spying on Americans and suspending habeas corpus?’

    If you’re talking about anything to do with the Patriot Act, or the pursuit of terrorists, like so many on the Left do, then here we disagree. I see that as the opposite. I see it as performing the duties of the Constitution, to protect and defend not only its citizens, but the Constitution itself.

    And this ‘the dumbing down of TV news introduced by Fox News and subsequently imitated.’ You’re not serious.

    There’s been a lot of dumbing down in our society, and it comes from our educational system, the Left, and the news media. I’m sure FOX would be flattered to know that you think that they and they alone, with a few million viewers (they’re on cable not broadcast), have hypnotized ALL the rest of them, who have hundreds of millions more viewers, into ‘dumbing’ us down?

  4. How about Bush started it when he began spying on Americans and suspending habeas corpus?

    The media sucks in general at doing investigative reporting. This is due to the downfall of newspapers and the dumbing down of TV news introduced by Fox News and subsequently imitated. People are now much more interested in what elected official is having an affair than what is actually going on behind the scenes of our government.

  5. You’re right. Bush started it when he signed McCain-Feingold. Bush then created a new entitlement program for Americans. Trying to out-Democrat Democrats, Bush pushed us over the cliff with the first bailout. That was like putting a stick in the spokes of the economic wheel instead of letting the free-market and current bankruptcy laws take their course.

    All of that was ignoring the constitution. It started on Bush’s watch, and Obama is taking full advantage of Rahm Emanual’s ‘Rule One’ right now to ‘remake America’ while the media serves as the cheering section.

    With Obama, nationalizing business and industry isn’t the fix for the economy. It is his goal.

    Another example is the new job description for a replacement Supreme Court Justice. Social Work is preferred. And we ought to consider laws of other countries. Constitutional scholars become a drag on the Executive Branch.

    Obama, and other Saul Alinsky soulmates, finally have their chance to legislate from the bench unabashedly and unchallenged by the media (which has constitutional protection). Voter participation is no longer required.

    The point is, the media was just as mute then, under Bush, as they are now under Obama.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *