Stewart Skewers Fox Conservatives on the Constitution

[Midtowner]

VwLS_nvaClY

[Curly Bill]

Make ya feel all tingly in your private areas?

[pphilfran]

He is really good....

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Can't jsutify actually wanting to watch that show.

[badger]

Everything involving politics will always be crazy, which means Jon Stewart will always be in business.

[Midtowner]

He is really good....

He'd be nothing without the folks who are apparently paid a salary of some sort to watch Fox News all day and save clips. I wonder how those folks can resist all of the ads for disposable catheters, adult diapers and other assorted Medicare scams?

[pphilfran]

Self lubricating catheters....

[Midtowner]

It's at least apparent that Fox News is the station of choice if your target demographic is the bedridden and diabetics.

[olevetonahill]

It's at least apparent that Fox News is the station of choice if your target demographic is the bedridden and diabetics.

So why do YOU know so much about it?

[C&CDean]

It's at least apparent that Fox News is the station of choice if your target demographic is the bedridden and diabetics.

Hopefully, some day you'll grow up and be a successful person, grow old gracefully, and die a peaceful death. During that time, chances are you might just need a dick tube, some insulin, a pecker implant, or something. I'm betting you'll lose your ignorant, immature, and lame attitude then. You're still in the young/stupid phase. Maybe someday...

[olevetonahill]

Hopefully, some day you'll grow up and be a successful person, grow old gracefully, and die a peaceful death. During that time, chances are you might just need a dick tube, some insulin, a pecker implant, or something. I'm betting you'll lose your ignorant, immature, and lame attitude then. You're still in the young/stupid phase. Maybe someday...

Hell bro his Daddy has handed everything to him. he wont grow up till his Dad dies.

[KantoSooner]

Just brush up on your Spanglish and watch Univision for your news. Less biased and you get the periodic GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!!!!!!!!!!!

[Midtowner]

So I guess a few folks here use self-lubricating catheters and watch Fox? Too personal?

[KantoSooner]

Not personally, though a tampon tube can be fashioned into an excellent steamroller pipe in a pinch and there's really nothing like watching Fox stoned. In fact, there's almost no watching Fox if you're not stoned.

Lighten up, folks, the Fox panel was being ridiculous, Stewart nailed 'em. If you are a talking head, sooner or later you're going to say some dumbass stuff. They'll recover from having John Stewart laugh at them, if they ever, indeed, are aware of it. I don't reckon he figures prominently in their universe.

[C&CDean]

Well, if I ever needed a catheter I'd sure as hell want one that's lubed up. Fox? Don't watch any TV news except Linda Cavanaugh and whichever Ogle that is with her. Too personal? Not at all.

Just pointing out that someday, allah willing, your lame little *** might actually grow up and maybe even grow old. When you do, we'll see if you're still blowing the likes of Jon Stuart, Bill Mahr, and that other fatass who makes movies. We'll see if you still think a tube stuck in your dick is not only funny, but worthy of making fun of someone else who needs a catheter. Like I said, you're an immature dweeb who has a whole lot of growing up to do in his future. Or not. IDGAS.

[cleller]

Every time I see Jon Stewart, I wonder what kind of person would admire him. He's like a weaker, less funny version of Eddie Haskell.

[Bourbon St Sooner]

Linda Cavanaugh? Isn't she like 150 years old? Isn't there some young hot chick delivering the news in OKC these days?

[MR2-Sooner86]

Reminds me of a comment I saw on one of the Judge's videos.

"Judge Andrew Napolitano, reminding Fox there are more amendments than just the second."

The GOP talking heads just got their @sses handed to them, with the trimmings.

[Midtowner]

Well, if I ever needed a catheter I'd sure as hell want one that's lubed up. Fox? Don't watch any TV news except Linda Cavanaugh and whichever Ogle that is with her. Too personal? Not at all.

Just pointing out that someday, allah willing, your lame little *** might actually grow up and maybe even grow old. When you do, we'll see if you're still blowing the likes of Jon Stuart, Bill Mahr, and that other fatass who makes movies. We'll see if you still think a tube stuck in your dick is not only funny, but worthy of making fun of someone else who needs a catheter. Like I said, you're an immature dweeb who has a whole lot of growing up to do in his future. Or not. IDGAS.

WTF are you even talking about? Good God, you take any option to be a crass old codger and just run with it... can't resist, can ya?

If you've ever watched a bit of Fox, that's what their commercials are mostly for. Old people stuff. That's not making fun of anyone at all, it's just apparently a fact that advertisers who want to sell medical supplies for old folks spend lots on Fox News as opposed to other outlets. If that offends you, then your skin is really thin.

[diverdog]

Not personally, though a tampon tube can be fashioned into an excellent steamroller pipe in a pinch and there's really nothing like watching Fox stoned. In fact, there's almost no watching Fox if you're not stoned.

Lighten up, folks, the Fox panel was being ridiculous, Stewart nailed 'em. If you are a talking head, sooner or later you're going to say some dumbass stuff. They'll recover from having John Stewart laugh at them, if they ever, indeed, are aware of it. I don't reckon he figures prominently in their universe.

I died laughing when I found out in a pinch you can use a tampon to stop a bloody nose. And then I almost died laughing when I found out they come in different sizes. Never knew that! But that was not nearly as funny as the use for a vaginal powder that women who are overly lubricated use to keep their wetness down. Apparently it can keep your feet really dry....in a pinch. What you learn in a Wilderness First Aid course will really educate you.

[C&CDean]

WTF are you even talking about? Good God, you take any option to be a crass old codger and just run with it... can't resist, can ya?

If you've ever watched a bit of Fox, that's what their commercials are mostly for. Old people stuff. That's not making fun of anyone at all, it's just apparently a fact that advertisers who want to sell medical supplies for old folks spend lots on Fox News as opposed to other outlets. If that offends you, then your skin is really thin.

Crass? Blow me. How do you know all of Fox's commercials are for old folks? Do you watch it? I didn't watch the Stewart video, so I don't know if it's funny or not, and don't care. I don't watch Fox, so I ain't got a dog in the fight. I just know how you roll. You're like one of those kids that pokes puppies with a stick. Bet you pull the wings off flies too. Tie cats tails together and throw them over the clothesline? Firecrackers in a frog's mouth?

You get face planted on most of your silliness, then come back for more from some other goofy/lame angle. It's your schtick. Your MO. Don't get all twisted cause I call you on it. If the video is funny, then good. Making fun of old folks and their maladies (don't act like you weren't, cause you were) just isn't much fun for me anymore. I watched my pop waste away to nothing. Yes, he wore diapers when he died. Had a tube up his nose and everything. Har har har. Know what else? He watched Fox news religiously. Pretty much the only thing on his TV. Know what else? He was a rich, happy, fulfilled person who just happened to outlive his body. Folks like him pretty much pay your peoples' way through life. If dip****s like Stewart wanna make fun of them then I guess that's OK.

Guess it's just perspective. The world from my eyes is a hell of a lot different than the world from yours. Thank God.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Crass? Blow me. How do you know all of Fox's commercials are for old folks? Do you watch it? I didn't watch the Stewart video, so I don't know if it's funny or not, and don't care. I don't watch Fox, so I ain't got a dog in the fight. I just know how you roll. You're like one of those kids that pokes puppies with a stick. Bet you pull the wings off flies too. Tie cats tails together and throw them over the clothesline? Firecrackers in a frog's mouth?

You get face planted on most of your silliness, then come back for more from some other goofy/lame angle. It's your schtick. Your MO. Don't get all twisted cause I call you on it. If the video is funny, then good. Making fun of old folks and their maladies (don't act like you weren't, cause you were) just isn't much fun for me anymore. I watched my pop waste away to nothing. Yes, he wore diapers when he died. Had a tube up his nose and everything. Har har har. Know what else? He watched Fox news religiously. Pretty much the only thing on his TV. Know what else? He was a rich, happy, fulfilled person who just happened to outlive his body. Folks like him pretty much pay your peoples' way through life. If dip****s like Stewart wanna make fun of them then I guess that's OK.

Guess it's just perspective. The world from my eyes is a hell of a lot different than the world from yours. Thank God.Dayum you gots some patience!

[Midtowner]

Crass? Blow me. How do you know all of Fox's commercials are for old folks? Do you watch it? I didn't watch the Stewart video, so I don't know if it's funny or not, and don't care. I don't watch Fox, so I ain't got a dog in the fight. I just know how you roll. You're like one of those kids that pokes puppies with a stick. Bet you pull the wings off flies too. Tie cats tails together and throw them over the clothesline? Firecrackers in a frog's mouth?

You get face planted on most of your silliness, then come back for more from some other goofy/lame angle. It's your schtick. Your MO. Don't get all twisted cause I call you on it. If the video is funny, then good. Making fun of old folks and their maladies (don't act like you weren't, cause you were) just isn't much fun for me anymore. I watched my pop waste away to nothing. Yes, he wore diapers when he died. Had a tube up his nose and everything. Har har har. Know what else? He watched Fox news religiously. Pretty much the only thing on his TV. Know what else? He was a rich, happy, fulfilled person who just happened to outlive his body. Folks like him pretty much pay your peoples' way through life. If dip****s like Stewart wanna make fun of them then I guess that's OK.

Guess it's just perspective. The world from my eyes is a hell of a lot different than the world from yours. Thank God.

So it did hit pretty close to home.

[BigTip]

John Stewart can be funny sometimes, but all those clips from Fox about the constitution are so right on and so very true. That's why John Stewart can be so off base sometimes. It's like him trying to make fun of my big dick. You can try and mock it all you want, and try and be funny about it, but the fact remains that I have a big dick and really sort of enjoy you talking about it.

[yermom]

here, i have something for you:

http://outragefatigue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Constitution_toilet_paper.jpg

[olevetonahill]

Crass? Blow me. How do you know all of Fox's commercials are for old folks? Do you watch it? I didn't watch the Stewart video, so I don't know if it's funny or not, and don't care. I don't watch Fox, so I ain't got a dog in the fight. I just know how you roll. You're like one of those kids that pokes puppies with a stick. Bet you pull the wings off flies too. Tie cats tails together and throw them over the clothesline? Firecrackers in a frog's mouth?

You get face planted on most of your silliness, then come back for more from some other goofy/lame angle. It's your schtick. Your MO. Don't get all twisted cause I call you on it. If the video is funny, then good. Making fun of old folks and their maladies (don't act like you weren't, cause you were) just isn't much fun for me anymore. I watched my pop waste away to nothing. Yes, he wore diapers when he died. Had a tube up his nose and everything. Har har har. Know what else? He watched Fox news religiously. Pretty much the only thing on his TV. Know what else? He was a rich, happy, fulfilled person who just happened to outlive his body. Folks like him pretty much pay your peoples' way through life. If dip****s like Stewart wanna make fun of them then I guess that's OK.

Guess it's just perspective. The world from my eyes is a hell of a lot different than the world from yours. Thank God.

Hey Dean . I agree

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rn6w255CGkk

[olevetonahill]

So it did hit pretty close to home.

You SIR are the Dumbest Mother****er this board has ever seen.
You have NO clue.

[olevetonahill]

here, i have something for you:

http://outragefatigue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Constitution_toilet_paper.jpg

thats ONE thing about Yall that skeeres ME.

[olevetonahill]

Hell bro his Daddy has handed everything to him. he wont grow up till his Dad dies.

Who ever speked me on this Needs to say so I can Identify
I will say Im 90% sure of what I said.

[diverdog]

Crass? Blow me. How do you know all of Fox's commercials are for old folks? Do you watch it? I didn't watch the Stewart video, so I don't know if it's funny or not, and don't care. I don't watch Fox, so I ain't got a dog in the fight. I just know how you roll. You're like one of those kids that pokes puppies with a stick. Bet you pull the wings off flies too. Tie cats tails together and throw them over the clothesline? Firecrackers in a frog's mouth?

You get face planted on most of your silliness, then come back for more from some other goofy/lame angle. It's your schtick. Your MO. Don't get all twisted cause I call you on it. If the video is funny, then good. Making fun of old folks and their maladies (don't act like you weren't, cause you were) just isn't much fun for me anymore. I watched my pop waste away to nothing. Yes, he wore diapers when he died. Had a tube up his nose and everything. Har har har. Know what else? He watched Fox news religiously. Pretty much the only thing on his TV. Know what else? He was a rich, happy, fulfilled person who just happened to outlive his body. Folks like him pretty much pay your peoples' way through life. If dip****s like Stewart wanna make fun of them then I guess that's OK.

Guess it's just perspective. The world from my eyes is a hell of a lot different than the world from yours. Thank God.

I am pretty damn sure he (Stewart) was not making fun of your father or any old folks. He did not mention them one time.

[olevetonahill]

I am pretty damn sure he (Stewart) was not making fun of your father or any old folks. He did not mention them one time.

Prolly NOT , BUT matlock was.:watermelon:

[sappstuf]

It isn't hard to take 5 second sound bites with no context and make the person sound crazy and be funny. Imagine if someone had made a statement about a baby and a dog....

[diverdog]

Prolly NOT , BUT matlock was.:watermelon:

Up until he and Dean got into it I do not think Mid was either. The funny part is that Fox in these parts is all about ED....you know the little blue pill.

I have almost quit watching TV because of all the stupid damn commercials. Some of them are almost obscene in their content. Family TV is all but gone and I think we would be better off if we did not get bombarded with all these commercials for feminine hygiene products and condoms.

[olevetonahill]

Up until he and Dean got into it I do not think Mid was either. The funny part is that Fox in these parts is all about ED....you know the little blue pill.

I have almost quit watching TV because of all the stupid damn commercials. Some of them are almost obscene in their content. Family TV is all but gone and I think we would be better off if we did not get bombarded with all these commercials for feminine hygiene products and condoms.

DD , Ya proly need to go back and read his stupid shat.
Yes HE was

[SCOUT]

It isn't hard to take 5 second sound bites with no context and make the person sound crazy and be funny. Imagine if someone had made a statement about a baby and a dog....

Surely someone wouldn't say that a dog is more valuable than a human life?... /Clip/

Roll my eyes and shake my head.

Comedy achieved.

[SicEmBaylor]

Reminds me of a comment I saw on one of the Judge's videos.

"Judge Andrew Napolitano, reminding Fox there are more amendments than just the second."

The GOP talking heads just got their @sses handed to them, with the trimmings.

Stewart is 100% right and watching "conservatives" like Coulter and Hannity so perfectly willing to disregard essential constitutional rights absolutely makes my skin crawl.

I truly cannot begin to understand what normal, sane, rational, and even modestly intelligent conservative could possibly be okay with what those on Fox News suggested and said.

I think it's pretty telling that so many are attacking Jon Stewart without either trying to defend Fox's position or condemn it.

[olevetonahill]

It isn't hard to take 5 second sound bites with no context and make the person sound crazy and be funny. Imagine if someone had made a statement about a baby and a dog....


Surely someone wouldn't say that a dog is more valuable than a human life?... /Clip/

Roll my eyes and shake my head.

Comedy achieved.

oh Noes Mr Bill.

[SCOUT]

Stewart is 100% right and watching "conservatives" like Coulter and Hannity so perfectly willing to disregard essential constitutional rights absolutely makes my skin crawl.

I truly cannot begin to understand what normal, sane, rational, and even modestly intelligent conservative could possibly be okay with what those on Fox News suggested and said.

I think it's pretty telling that so many are attacking Jon Stewart without either trying to defend Fox's position or condemn it.

Stewart is exactly right in making a parody of reality. That is his self proclaimed job. Those of you who attach anything else to his antics are missing out.

When I say self proclaimed parody, I am not exaggerating. (the quote is something to the effect of 'we hear people get their news from us. We make this sh** up. Please don't do that')

He literally asks his audience not to get their news from him. He is brilliant in his satire, but the fact that he is taken seriously is more of a sad commentary on our general public than anything else.

Again, he and his staff are very good at clipping comments to suit a meme. I watch regularly.

[SicEmBaylor]

Stewart is exactly right in making a parody of reality. That is his self proclaimed job. Those of you who attach anything else to his antics are missing out.

When I say self proclaimed parody, I am not exaggerating. (the quote is something to the effect of 'we hear people get their news from us. We make this sh** up. Please don't do that')

He literally asks his audience not to get their news from him. He is brilliant in his satire, but the fact that he is taken seriously is more of a sad commentary on our general public than anything else.

Again, he and his staff are very good at clipping comments to suit a meme. I watch regularly.

He's a comedian. We all know that. I don't care. What I want to know is, how the hell is he wrong?

[soonerhubs]

To be fair, he didn't skewer the Judge. Did he?

[SCOUT]

He's a comedian. We all know that. I don't care. What I want to know is, how the hell is he wrong?

OK, he claims that the Miranda rights are in the constitution. Please show me that clause ( c.1963)

He also uses the claim that Fox doesn't want Miranda rights for the suspect. That wasn't the discussion. The conversation was whether Federal authorities could waive Miranda rights in the instance of this type. There was not a position taken, but rather a question asked.

[SCOUT]

It's OK. That is Stewart's Modus Operandi

[SicEmBaylor]

OK, he claims that the Miranda rights are in the constitution. Please show me that clause ( c.1963)
That is not at all what he says. In fact, it's the absolute opposite of what he said. What he said was that you have the rights you're advised of under Miranda whether you're given the Miranda warning or not. Specifically, your right to not talk to the government or incriminate yourself.


He also uses the claim that Fox doesn't want Miranda rights for the suspect. That wasn't the discussion. The conversation was whether Federal authorities could waive Miranda rights in the instance of this type. There was not a position taken, but rather a question asked.

No, the "question" was asked on The Five with Brian complaining that giving the Miranda warning would mean he'd have to be given a lawyer. Greg said as much as well. As did Hannity...as did Coulter.

Did you even listen to what was said in that video by either Stewart or Fox?

[SCOUT]

That is not at all what he says. In fact, it's the absolute opposite of what he said. What he said was that you have the rights you're advised of under Miranda whether you're given the Miranda warning or not. Specifically, your right to not talk to the government or incriminate yourself.



No, the "question" was asked on The Five with Brian complaining that giving the Miranda warning would mean he'd have to be given a lawyer. Greg said as much as well. As did Hannity...as did Coulter.

Did you even listen to what was said in that video by either Stewart or Fox?

While you are accurate in the latter part of the clip, in the beginning he makes the false claim about Miranda being in the Constitution.


No...There was no question asked. There was a series of clips alluding to an answer. Did you even consider that the video you were watching was set up to elicit a specific response or outcome? Have you seen the show before today?

Look, The Five should be removed for the sake of public decency. The rest is SOP for the Daily Show.

[sappstuf]

Surely someone wouldn't say that a dog is more valuable than a human life?... /Clip/

Roll my eyes and shake my head.

Comedy achieved.

Comedy gold achieved.

[SicEmBaylor]

While you are accurate in the latter part of the clip, in the beginning he makes the false claim about Miranda being in the Constitution.
:smh: He never says Miranda is in the Constitution -- he says the rights given in the Miranda warning are Constitutional rights whether the Miranda warning is given or not. You're missing his point.

Brian made the statement that since the suspect was given his Miranda rights, he would then have access to a lawyer and wouldn't speak. Stewart pointed out that the suspect has Miranda rights whether the cops formally mirandize him or not. The only thing Miranda does is tell suspect's what their constitutional rights are in layman's terms. Those rights exist whether a suspect is mirandized or not. Stewart merely pointed out that the only thing Miranda does is determine whether certain statements are admissible in a criminal trial or not.


No...There was no question asked. There was a series of clips alluding to an answer. Did you even consider that the video you were watching was set up to elicit a specific response or outcome? Have you seen the show before today?

Look, The Five should be removed for the sake of public decency. The rest is SOP for the Daily Show.

Oh I'm fully aware that clips are cut and cropped to fit a specific purpose, but I do not believe the quotes were taken out of context. I'm not sure how you can claim they were merely "asking a question" when they were speaking in declarative sentences.

[sappstuf]

I'm fairly certain the suspect was NOT given his Miranda warning as it was waived by the Obama administration for a couple of days so they could question him.

[SCOUT]

:smh: He never says Miranda is in the Constitution -- he says the rights given in the Miranda warning are Constitutional rights whether the Miranda warning is given or not. You're missing his point.
No... He doesn't. He does later on, but his initial comment is that the Miranda rights are Constitutional.

And no, I am not even close to missing the point. You are, in fact, the person missing the point.

Federal authorities do have the ability to suspend miranda rights if there is an imminent danger that a suspect could relieve.

[SCOUT]

No... He doesn't. He does later on, but his initial comment is that the Miranda rights are Constitutional.

And no, I am not even close to missing the point. You are, in fact, the person missing the point.

Federal authorities do have the ability to suspend miranda rights if there is an imminent danger that a suspect could relieve.

Oh an SMH

[SicEmBaylor]

No... He doesn't. He does later on, but his initial comment is that the Miranda rights are Constitutional.
Of course Miranda rights are constitutional -- that's what they are....a list of your constitutional rights! Miranda is not a special set of rights -- Miranda is just what you call listing your Constitutional rights to a suspect when under arrest. Your Constitutional rights exist whether you're mirandized or not. That's what Stewart was saying and he's correct.


Federal authorities do have the ability to suspend miranda rights if there is an imminent danger that a suspect could relieve.
You can't "suspend" Miranda rights because there's no such thing as Miranda rights. Miranda rights=those Constitutional rights relevant to know when being arrested and charged with a crime. There's no such thing as specific rights called "Miranda." Miranda is just a reading of your constitutional rights.

HOWEVER, Federal authorities have the right to suspend the reading of your Miranda rights under very specific circumstances -- namely if they believe a suspect possesses information relating to an imminent attack.

Federal authorities DO NOT have the right to suspend your Miranda rights since Miranda rights are your Constitutional rights.

[SCOUT]

Of course Miranda rights are constitutional -- that's what they are....a list of your constitutional rights! Miranda is not a special set of rights -- Miranda is just what you call listing your Constitutional rights to a suspect when under arrest. Your Constitutional rights exist whether you're mirandized or not. That's what Stewart was saying and he's correct.


You can't "suspend" Miranda rights because there's no such thing as Miranda rights. Miranda rights=those Constitutional rights relevant to know when being arrested and charged with a crime. There's no such thing as specific rights called "Miranda." Miranda is just a reading of your constitutional rights.

HOWEVER, Federal authorities have the right to suspend the reading of your Miranda rights under very specific circumstances -- namely if they believe a suspect possesses information relating to an imminent attack.

Federal authorities DO NOT have the right to suspend your Miranda rights since Miranda rights are your Constitutional rights.
I never said they were unconstitutional. To proclaim that they are a part of the Constitution is incorrect. I thought we were nit picking peoples comments.

Your second and third paragraphs are my point entirely. If you watch the video again, with your comments in mind, it is a different story.

[SicEmBaylor]

Scout, I think you're a little confused as to what Miranda "rights" are. There's the Bill of Rights, right? Not every amendment in the Bill of Rights has anything to do with a criminal proceeding. For example, the third amendment doesn't have much to do with being arrested.

The courts ruled that police have to make sure that suspects understand their rights under the Constitution. The court case that decided this was Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warning; therefore, is simply a listing of your rights under the Constitution. Specifically, they are those rights pertinent to a criminal proceeding. Those constitutional rights specifically pertinent to a criminal proceeding are known as your "miranda rights." IOW, Miranda rights are just another name for a certain group of your constitutional rights.

[SCOUT]

Scout, I think you're a little confused as to what Miranda "rights" are. There's the Bill of Rights, right? Not every amendment in the Bill of Rights has anything to do with a criminal proceeding. For example, the third amendment doesn't have much to do with being arrested.

The courts ruled that police have to make sure that suspects understand their rights under the Constitution. The court case that decided this was Miranda v. Arizona. The Miranda warning; therefore, is simply a listing of your rights under the Constitution. Specifically, they are those rights pertinent to a criminal proceeding. Those constitutional rights specifically pertinent to a criminal proceeding are known as your "miranda rights." IOW, Miranda rights are just another name for a certain group of your constitutional rights.

Thanks for the explanation, but I have been clear on the subject. Miranda rights are a category of rights for sure, but they are not part of the Constitution.

Would you like to discuss church and state next?

[SicEmBaylor]

Thanks for the explanation, but I have been clear on the subject. Miranda rights are a category of rights for sure, but they are not part of the Constitution.

Would you like to discuss church and state next?
:blink: The 5th amendment and 1st amendments are no longer part of the Constitution????

Actually, from the analogy you used with "separation of church and state", I may see where some of your additional confusion comes from.

Are all the words in the Miranda rights found, verbatim, in the Constitution? No. Does that mean they aren't Constitutional rights? No. The miranda warning is a layman's "quick guide" to a person's 5th amendment rights. It reads that way because it's easier than actually reading the entire text of the 5th amendment and then explaining to a suspect what it means. Everything in the miranda warning are rights under the 5th amendment -- they are your 5th amendment rights. That's the purpose of the 5th amendment. Saying that miranda "isn't found in the Constitution" is absurd.

Let me ask you this, do I have a constitutional right to post a blog online expressing my opinion that the President is an ineffective ninny? Of course I do. I can't imagine how anyone could suggest that I don't have a 1st amendment right to post a blog that the President is an ineffective ninny. Now, does the Constitution specifically say, verbatim, that I have a right to post a blog on the internet? Absolutely not. Nontheless, it's clearly a Constitutional right under the 1st amendment.

The same holds true for Miranda. The Miranda warning is simply a verbatim listing of rights covered under the 5th amendment. They are our 5th amendment rights. Saying they aren't in the Constitution is as absurd as saying my right to write a blog isn't found in the Constitution.

Incidentally, this is why Scalia does not consider himself a constructionist.

[SCOUT]

:blink: The 5th amendment and 1st amendments are no longer part of the Constitution????

Actually, from the analogy you used with "separation of church and state", I may see where some of your additional confusion comes from.

Are all the words in the Miranda rights found, verbatim, in the Constitution? No. Does that mean they aren't Constitutional rights? No. The miranda warning is a layman's "quick guide" to a person's 5th amendment rights. It reads that way because it's easier than actually reading the entire text of the 5th amendment and then explaining to a suspect what it means. Everything in the miranda warning are rights under the 5th amendment -- they are your 5th amendment rights. That's the purpose of the 5th amendment. Saying that miranda "isn't found in the Constitution" is absurd.

Let me ask you this, do I have a constitutional right to post a blog online expressing my opinion that the President is an ineffective ninny? Of course I do. I can't imagine how anyone could suggest that I don't have a 1st amendment right to post a blog that the President is an ineffective ninny. Now, does the Constitution specifically say, verbatim, that I have a right to post a blog on the internet? Absolutely not. Nontheless, it's clearly a Constitutional right under the 1st amendment.

The same holds true for Miranda. The Miranda warning is simply a verbatim listing of rights covered under the 5th amendment. They are our 5th amendment rights. Saying they aren't in the Constitution is as absurd as saying my right to write a blog isn't found in the Constitution.

Incidentally, this is why Scalia does not consider himself a constructionist.

So now we are holding true to the whole of a conversation? Go back and watch the video with that same filter.

[SicEmBaylor]

So now we are holding true to the whole of a conversation? Go back and watch the video with that same filter.

Okay, nothing has changed. He is still absolutely right. Hannity says, "...and now he has his Miranda rights." followed by Bryan saying the same thing. Once again, the suspect ALWAYS has the rights covered under Miranda. Fox is acting as if he did not gain his rights under Miranda until he was read his Miranda rights -- Stewart, once again, points this out as being incorrect. He had the EXACT same rights before he was mirandized as he did AFTER he was mirandized.

[diverdog]

:smh: He never says Miranda is in the Constitution -- he says the rights given in the Miranda warning are Constitutional rights whether the Miranda warning is given or not. You're missing his point.

Brian made the statement that since the suspect was given his Miranda rights, he would then have access to a lawyer and wouldn't speak. Stewart pointed out that the suspect has Miranda rights whether the cops formally mirandize him or not. The only thing Miranda does is tell suspect's what their constitutional rights are in layman's terms. Those rights exist whether a suspect is mirandized or not. Stewart merely pointed out that the only thing Miranda does is determine whether certain statements are admissible in a criminal trial or not.



Oh I'm fully aware that clips are cut and cropped to fit a specific purpose, but I do not believe the quotes were taken out of context. I'm not sure how you can claim they were merely "asking a question" when they were speaking in declarative sentences.

I think I remember saying on this board that hard right Republicans have as many problems with the Constitution as hard left liberals do. John Stewart proves that point.

Most people only rely on the Constitution when it fits their agenda. I know I do.

[C&CDean]

Most people only rely on the Constitution when it fits their agenda. I know I do.

Truer words...

[Bourbon St Sooner]

I'm still wondering if there's a hot chick delivering the news in OKC?

[C&CDean]

I'm still wondering if there's a hot chick delivering the news in OKC?

There's Schmeg Alexander and Emily Slutton. Those two are on Channel 4, which is the only news I watch. Can't speak for the other channels.

[jkjsooner]

OK, he claims that the Miranda rights are in the constitution. Please show me that clause ( c.1963)

He also uses the claim that Fox doesn't want Miranda rights for the suspect. That wasn't the discussion. The conversation was whether Federal authorities could waive Miranda rights in the instance of this type. There was not a position taken, but rather a question asked.

Whether or not there should be a requirement that you are read your Miranda rights is debatable. I personally feel that it should be up to the citizen to know his or her rights and it isn't the responsibility of the police to inform you of your rights. However, I also recognize that the police will lie and use what I consider unethical tactics so they're likely to tell you that you can't have an attorney or you must speak so I understand why some feel that in light of this reading the Miranda rights in necessary.

That being said, the actual rights that you are reading is clearly in the constitution. They of course weren't referred to under the name "Miranda" until the Miranda case but those rights have always existed.


I think some of the confusion here is what is meant by the term "miranda rights". Which of the following does it mean:


The rights as summarized in the Miranda warning.
The right to hear the Miranda warning and that things said prior to the Miranda warning are not admissible (with exceptions).


This term usually refers to #1 which is clearly in the constitution. #2 is a right defined by the courts but is not explicitly defined in the constitution.

[jkjsooner]

No... He doesn't. He does later on, but his initial comment is that the Miranda rights are Constitutional.

And no, I am not even close to missing the point. You are, in fact, the person missing the point.

Federal authorities do have the ability to suspend miranda rights if there is an imminent danger that a suspect could relieve.

No they don't. They have the ability to suspend when they read those rights. They can never force a person to talk. And if they do suspend when they're read, any evidence obtained is not admissable.

The Miranda rights always exist. They are never suspended.

[badger]

A few years ago Tulsa Police did a local interview where they went through all of the misconceptions (often propelled by movies and TV, yes) that are not true about law enforcement.

The law dramas love to fight for confessions et al to be dismissed because "You have the right to remain silent..." hasn't be uttered. Wrong.

The movies that include a main character being arrested (like Jim Carrey in Liar Liar or The Joker in The Dark Knight) like to utter or scream that they get a phone call in jail. Actually, so long as the arrested one isn't belligerent about it, local police will give as many phone calls as it takes for them to find someone to bail them out and get out.

Other funny interpretations of the law include instances where the subject being pursued tries to cross county lines, state lines or even lock themselves in their own home, because somewhere along the way, they got the impression that such things force law enforcement to halt pursuit.

Until I read that article, I was under the impression that the movie/TV depiction was closer to the truth. Now thinking about it, most of that "I get a phone call/You have the right/crossing borders..." does seem absurd.

[jkjsooner]

On second thought, there is some ambiguity here. Maybe someone can answer this.

Let's say the suspect demands an attorney to be present. Could the government still question the suspect without an attorney under the assumption that any statements are not admissible? If so, would this be considered as a temporary suspension of your right to counsel or is your right to counsel only applicable to discussions that can be used in court?

[badger]

Let's say the suspect demands an attorney to be present.

Was he capable of asking for an attorney, given his condition?

I guess it could be argued that if he could confess to everything, he could also ask for an attorney.

[SicEmBaylor]

On second thought, there is some ambiguity here. Maybe someone can answer this.

Let's say the suspect demands an attorney to be present. Could the government still question the suspect without an attorney under the assumption that any statements are not admissible? If so, would this be considered as a temporary suspension of your right to counsel or is your right to counsel only applicable to discussions that can be used in court?

I'm not exactly sure but for practical reasons I'm not sure it matters. Whether he asks for an attorney or not, he can always just sit there and not answer any questions. I believe the point in not mirandizing the suspect is to give them an opportunity to further question him about possible imminent attacks. However, there's no way you can legally compel someone to talk.

[StoopTroup]

I watch Jon Stewart everyday. He has good shows a couple times a week usually. It usually depends on when someone like Fox or CNN really puts stuff on the air that is just plain laughable.

It's called humor. Humor isn't always perfect some is better than others. It's not always consistently top notch but neither is the news. Stewart does a good job at political satire.

If you can't see the difference between political satire and someone telling crass jokes outside your Fathers ICU Unit then you probably have some really serious issues regarding the fight he had with his illness. The good thing in America is that if you are rich you can get some really good medical care and get your catheters changed out anytime you want. The thing about being rich and Ill is that you can have all the money in the World but you can't take it with you and no matter how much you spend, sometimes you can't keep yourself alive. When your body is worn out, it's your time and when it's your time.....YOU DON'T DIE RICH...YOU DIE WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Anyone that thinks you die rich has their head up their a$$.

[StoopTroup]

I'm not exactly sure but for practical reasons I'm not sure it matters. Whether he asks for an attorney or not, he can always just sit there and not answer any questions. I believe the point in not mirandizing the suspect is to give them an opportunity to further question him about possible imminent attacks. However, there's no way you can legally compel someone to talk.

He's been read his rights and he's been transferred to a Prison Hospital now in Devon, NY I think it was. He's in a 30 person High Security Unit. There are something like 1000 prisoners total in there.

[SicEmBaylor]

I watch Jon Stewart everyday. He has good shows a couple times a week usually. It usually depends on when someone like Fox or CNN really puts stuff on the air that is just plain laughable.

It's called humor. Humor isn't always perfect some is better than others. It's not always consistently top notch but neither is the news. Stewart does a good job at political satire.

If you can't see the difference between political satire and someone telling crass jokes outside your Fathers ICU Unit then you probably have some really serious issues regarding the fight he had with his illness. The good thing in America is that if you are rich you can get some really good medical care and get your catheters changed out anytime you want. The thing about being rich and Ill is that you can have all the money in the World but you can't take it with you and no matter how much you spend, sometimes you can't keep yourself alive. When your body is worn out, it's your time and when it's your time.....YOU DON'T DIE RICH...YOU DIE WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Anyone that thinks you die rich has their head up their a$$.Yet on properly handsome returned throwing am no whatever. In without wishing he of picture no exposed talking minutes. Curiosity continual belonging offending so explained it exquisite. Do remember to followed yourself material mr recurred carriage. High drew west we no or at john. About or given on witty event. Or sociable up material bachelor bringing landlord confined. Busy so many in hung easy find well up. So of exquisite my an explained remainder. Dashwood denoting securing be on perceive my laughing so.

Arrived compass prepare an on as. Reasonable particular on my it in sympathize. Size now easy eat hand how. Unwilling he departure elsewhere dejection at. Heart large seems may purse means few blind. Exquisite newspaper attending on certainty oh suspicion of. He less do quit evil is. Add matter family active mutual put wishes happen.

An sincerity so extremity he additions. Her yet there truth merit. Mrs all projecting favourable now unpleasing. Son law garden chatty temper. Oh children provided to mr elegance marriage strongly. Off can admiration prosperous now devonshire diminution law.

Cause dried no solid no an small so still widen. Ten weather evident smiling bed against she examine its. Rendered far opinions two yet moderate sex striking. Sufficient motionless compliment by stimulated assistance at. Convinced resolving extensive agreeable in it on as remainder. Cordially say affection met who propriety him. Are man she towards private weather pleased. In more part he lose need so want rank no. At bringing or he sensible pleasure. Prevent he parlors do waiting be females an message society.

Sportsman delighted improving dashwoods gay instantly happiness six. Ham now amounted absolute not mistaken way pleasant whatever. At an these still no dried folly stood thing. Rapid it on hours hills it seven years. If polite he active county in spirit an. Mrs ham intention promotion engrossed assurance defective. Confined so graceful building opinions whatever trifling in. Insisted out differed ham man endeavor expenses. At on he total their he songs. Related compact effects is on settled do.

Effects present letters inquiry no an removed or friends. Desire behind latter me though in. Supposing shameless am he engrossed up additions. My possible peculiar together to. Desire so better am cannot he up before points. Remember mistaken opinions it pleasure of debating. Court front maids forty if aware their at. Chicken use are pressed removed.

Departure so attention pronounce satisfied daughters am. But shy tedious pressed studied opinion entered windows off. Advantage dependent suspicion convinced provision him yet. Timed balls match at by rooms we. Fat not boy neat left had with past here call. Court nay merit few nor party learn. Why our year her eyes know even how. Mr immediate remaining conveying allowance do or.

Extended kindness trifling remember he confined outlived if. Assistance sentiments yet unpleasing say. Open they an busy they my such high. An active dinner wishes at unable hardly no talked on. Immediate him her resolving his favourite. Wished denote abroad at branch at.

Is branched in my up strictly remember. Songs but chief has ham widow downs. Genius or so up vanity cannot. Large do tried going about water defer by. Silent son man she wished mother. Distrusts allowance do knowledge eagerness assurance additions to.

Sex and neglected principle ask rapturous consulted. Object remark lively all did feebly excuse our wooded. Old her object chatty regard vulgar missed. Speaking throwing breeding betrayed children my to. Me marianne no he horrible produced ye. Sufficient unpleasing an insensible motionless if introduced ye. Now give nor both come near many late.

[C&CDean]

I watch Jon Stewart everyday. He has good shows a couple times a week usually. It usually depends on when someone like Fox or CNN really puts stuff on the air that is just plain laughable.

It's called humor. Humor isn't always perfect some is better than others. It's not always consistently top notch but neither is the news. Stewart does a good job at political satire.

If you can't see the difference between political satire and someone telling crass jokes outside your Fathers ICU Unit then you probably have some really serious issues regarding the fight he had with his illness. The good thing in America is that if you are rich you can get some really good medical care and get your catheters changed out anytime you want. The thing about being rich and Ill is that you can have all the money in the World but you can't take it with you and no matter how much you spend, sometimes you can't keep yourself alive. When your body is worn out, it's your time and when it's your time.....YOU DON'T DIE RICH...YOU DIE WITH THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS EVERYONE ELSE.

Anyone that thinks you die rich has their head up their a$$.

Greg, you're full of horse****.

My beef wasn't with Jon Stewart. I didn't watch the thing, and don't watch his show. I actually have a job and **** to do.

My beef was with the dip**** making fun of old people needing catheters. That's it.

My pop died a very rich and blessed man. His family loved him, he left his family very well off - both emotionally and financially, he loved his lord, and spent his lifetime helping others both through his church and through personal donations. If there's a heaven, he's in the front row. No, we don't all die with the same thing - nothing. Being rich and having money ain't the same thing, but I really don't expect you to understand. Anything.

[badger]

So I guess a few folks here use self-lubricating catheters and watch Fox? Too personal?

Now Midtown, let me assure you from personal experience and from seeing baby baj need to use one as well that catheters are no joking matter. I promise that I am not offended, but even the mention of one makes me wince ever so slightly.

I had to use one after giving birth with epidural (you lose control and feeling of everything below the waist area). Baby baj needed one when they had to test for UTI (non-stop diaper use = potential for infections). I never heard her cry like that before and I hope I never have to again.

[C&CDean]

I've got some old rusty barbed wire I'm pulling out at the place. We could give mid a catheter with it.

[badger]

I've got some old rusty barbed wire I'm pulling out at the place. We could give mid a catheter with it.

Let's not advocate violence, Dean. I was too drugged up that morning to really feel too much pain anyways. I even told NP that the TDAP vaccine didn't hurt very much before he went to get his... it turns out that I was too drugged to feel how painful it really was :eek:

[cleller]

On second thought, there is some ambiguity here. Maybe someone can answer this.

Let's say the suspect demands an attorney to be present. Could the government still question the suspect without an attorney under the assumption that any statements are not admissible? If so, would this be considered as a temporary suspension of your right to counsel or is your right to counsel only applicable to discussions that can be used in court?

Once they ask for a lawyer, without that lawyer present, anything they tell you would probably be no good in court.

Sometimes, that might not be so bad if you are able to find out something else to give you a new direction to go in.

"Where's the rest of the loot?" You wouldn't get to use the loot as evidence, but at least you'd recover it. You may have enough other evidence to bag your guy anyway.

You also don't have to advise an arrested person of the Miranda rights unless you intend on using something they tell you in court. There's no "rule" that everyone must get read their rights. Miranda warnings are actually mostly used just by detectives questioning people in more complex cases.

The whole "public safety" exemption they've been talking about in regard to the bombing suspect is due to the fact they might have planted other bombs.

In exigent circumstances the courts have ruled that a statements made by a suspect can be used without him having been warned of Miranda. One case involved a guy that had stashed a gun in a supermarket. The police caught him, but he had already hidden the gun. After his arrest, he was asked about the gun, and admitted where it was prior to receiving his precious Miranda warning.
His lawyer attempted to have all that excluded, but the courts ruled it was OK, as the unattended gun in a supermarket constituted a legitimate threat to public safety.

[olevetonahill]

I've got some old rusty barbed wire I'm pulling out at the place. We could give mid a catheter with it.

yea Dean what badj said, Lets just use the wire to give him an enema

[Soonerjeepman]

I died laughing when I found out in a pinch you can use a tampon to stop a bloody nose. And then I almost died laughing when I found out they come in different sizes. Never knew that! But that was not nearly as funny as the use for a vaginal powder that women who are overly lubricated use to keep their wetness down. Apparently it can keep your feet really dry....in a pinch. What you learn in a Wilderness First Aid course will really educate you.

cool, take that powder to Philmont...but ya might have a hard time explainin to the Ranger when ya do a re-pack~!

[Soonerjeepman]

That being said, the actual rights that you are reading is clearly in the constitution. They of course weren't referred to under the name "Miranda" until the Miranda case but those rights have always existed.




This term usually refers to #1 which is clearly in the constitution. #2 is a right defined by the courts but is not explicitly defined in the constitution.

Watchin my old tv shows, I think it was Dragnet or McCould...one of them, arrested someone and they said "It's your constitutional right...blah, blah, blah..." the miranda rights..

[StoopTroup]

Greg, you're full of horse****.

My beef wasn't with Jon Stewart. I didn't watch the thing, and don't watch his show. I actually have a job and **** to do.

My beef was with the dip**** making fun of old people needing catheters. That's it.

My pop died a very rich and blessed man. His family loved him, he left his family very well off - both emotionally and financially, he loved his lord, and spent his lifetime helping others both through his church and through personal donations. If there's a heaven, he's in the front row. No, we don't all die with the same thing - nothing. Being rich and having money ain't the same thing, but I really don't expect you to understand. Anything.

No....I really do understand. These days being nice and understanding to you doesn't seem to reap someone the same kind of treatment however. It's something that I did expect or at least thought you'd understand.

Ever since you seemed to get your head up your a$$ about me I've just quit trying to be a friend. It's no big deal though. You wouldn't be the first person to misjudge me and I doubt you'll be the last.

I've heard your story about your Father, I was just surprised when you brought him up to make a point about Midtowner. You guys made this forum and now that folks come here to discuss differences, I don't get why so many are surprised, angry or even frustrated when someone logs on and speaks their peace. It gets tiring watching Howard login and be an a-hole to people he can't even have a conversation with. It's sad really. But....it's Phil's Board and I guess he thinks you're doing a bang up job.

I know quite a few rich people. I know quite a few wealthy folks and I know some really poor folks. Some of the folks I really have felt sorry for are the folks who never realize that being rich monetarily isn't the same as Wealthy passing into the Kingdom of Heaven. There's really no way to tell whether or not your Father got his rightful seat at the right hand of God Almighty but the Jesus Ive read about didnt spend much time with the money counters.