OK the first part of the video reminds me why I don't watch O'Reilly anymore. No one can finish what they are saying without O'Reilly interrupting them. If someone can disregard our Constitution whenever they disagree with it then maybe that makes them the pinhead.

I am not sure it was properly quoted.

@Carol Forsloff

I am not sure it was properly quoted.

It being what? The constitution? As Keith Olbermann pointed out, when he was talking about this issue, if a known liberal had uttered the phrase; I don't care about the Constitution, he would have been ALL over it.

I'm surprised O'Reilly's even heard of the Constitution. That's probably a liberal conspiracy, too, according to him, like daylight, trees, and 9/11 bereaved family members.

hahaha ... Napolitano could have charged O’Reilly right there and then for treason.

Of course O'Reilly doesn't care about the U.S. Constitution. Anyone with any common sense should have realized that a long time ago. Only an absolute fool would defend or support the conduct of Bill O'Reilly. He is a disgrace to his country.

Napolitano is a libertarian. Non-uniformed combatants that target unarmed civilians deserve a blindfold, a cigarette and about three ounces of hot lead. When these clowns are set free by the ACLU the Arab street will be delighted.

Neither party cares about the Constitution when you step outside the charade of left/right politics and look closely.

Most of you are mixing apples and oranges. If we are at War the same rules that apply to civilian cases do not apply. If we are not at War than Napolitano, in my opinion, is correct. I am not clear how much different O'Reilly's off the cuff comment about not caring about the Constitution is any worse than the President of the US and the Attorney General saying the terrorists will be convicted and sent away for a long time. In fact, I would argue that O'Reilly being a talk show host making a comment that he shouldn't have made is not nearly as serious as the President and Attorney General acting as judge and jury. As the #1 person in the US responsible for upholding the Constitution and insuring all the laws are enforced,plus the chief enforcement officer-the Attorney General, should be making comments about someone's guilt or innocence before they have even been indicted and tried by a jury, be it civilian or military. Obama and Holder must remain totally neutral and not taint the jury pool or anyone else involved in the judicial process. Second, both the President and the Attorney General noted that we are at War. Wrong! Under the Constitution of the US only Congress-I repeat only Congress- can declare War and unless I have been asleep for a long time War has never been officially declared, so we can't, under law, be at War no matter what the President or Attorney General have said in the last few days. (I have been critical of all our Presidents who have ignored the requirement for Congress to declare War. If there is any part of the Constitution we should pay attention to, it is the part about taking the country to War.) So, when one weighs which person(s) made the most significant error and showed the most lack of knowledge about what the Constitution requires or doesn't require, I suggest it isn't even close. In this case, the President and the Attorney General are "guilty' of gross violation of the Constitution of the US. Speaking of Holder's testimony, he sure came across as an ignorant chief law enforcement officer and head of the Justice Department. Sen. Graham asked Holder if there had ever in the history of the US been an enemy combatant who was given the rights every US citizen possesses, Holder didn't have a clue. Senator Graham had to inform him of the answer. (One would think that if he (Holder) were planning on making a decision like he has made about where an enemy combatant should be tried, he would, at the very least, know the history of past similar situations, which of course, there haven't been any. (Sen. Graham is also a senior colonel in the Air Force Judge Advocate Office.) While I don't like O'Reilly because he doesn't let people finish what they want to say, I think any negative comments about O'Reilly re. his comment in an emotional situation about the Constitution, are extremely minor compared to the President and Attorney General "convicting" the suspect before he is even tried.

If you know anything at all about O'Reilly, you would know he does care about the Constitution. In fact, I would argue that he care more than some of our current leadership in Congress and the Executive Department.

@Gary Brown

If you know anything at all about O'Reilly, you would know he does care about the Constitution. In fact, I would argue that he care more than some of our current leadership in Congress and the Executive Department.

I'm certain that he does care about the constitution having heard him on a number of occasions defend it. However the neo-socs will always put on a negative spin especially when an emotional response is uttered that supports their preconceived ideas. And it probably was not "properly quoted" as mentioned earlier. O'Reilly is bombastic, egotistical and generally opts for the centrist position which continues to get him in trouble with the hard left and that is probably why I occasionally watch him, for entertainment. For facts I go elsewhere like Beck and the Internet or anywhere the mainstream media hasn't contaminated with their "progressive" bias and pseudo journalism.

Being a pinhead... should be the phrase that gets your attention.. The guest.. in typical lawyer fashion was TRYING to not answer the question. Enough said on that issue... O'Reilly in his typical fashion... mad his comment. For all those out there that... think this was a true statement. Then you need to question all the members of the House, and the Senate... all those liberal lawyers in the United States and those on the Supreme Court... you must question all the governors in the states... and all the politicians in each state. According to the United States Constitution HOW CAN you have elected Obama POTUS knowing that the Constitution REQUIRED that a candidate for POTUS MUST be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States. Obama has readily admitted that his father was a British Citizen... thus Obama is and perhaps still is a British Subject... at no time has anyone mentioned that he was also a Kenyan Citizen and an INDONESIAN citizen prior to age 21. Now you HAVE all those people THAT have will malice and fore thought disregarded the Constitution of the United States. Who is more at fault... ??? My vote is OBAMA and all those political figures in the UNITED STATES that have read the Constitution, at least are SWORN to support that Constitution and have failed to do so.

@Bob Miller

Being a pinhead... should be the phrase that gets your attention..

The guest.. in typical lawyer fashion was TRYING to not answer the question. Enough said on that issue... O'Reilly in his typical fashion... mad his comment.

For all those out there that... think this was a true statement. Then you need to question all the members of the House, and the Senate... all those liberal lawyers in the United States and those on the Supreme Court... you must question all the governors in the states... and all the politicians in each state.

According to the United States Constitution HOW CAN you have elected Obama POTUS knowing that the Constitution REQUIRED that a candidate for POTUS MUST be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN of the United States.

Obama has readily admitted that his father was a British Citizen... thus Obama is and perhaps still is a British Subject... at no time has anyone mentioned that he was also a Kenyan Citizen and an INDONESIAN citizen prior to age 21.

Now you HAVE all those people THAT have will malice and fore thought disregarded the Constitution of the United States.

Who is more at fault... ???

My vote is OBAMA and all those political figures in the UNITED STATES that have read the Constitution, at least are SWORN to support that Constitution and have failed to do so.

My vote is OBAMA I second that. All branches of government including the judicial have ignored the constitution especially with regard to the legitimacy of the current resident in the oval office. They are all therefore hypocritical and working from an indefensible position. It all began with a lie and with the continuing lies and lack of transparency, it will ultimately implode from any number of lies within the ongoing mess. The current crisis is the presidential/congressional push to ram through a disastrous health care initiative that will hurt every aspect of this society. The latest idea is to push the cost of nationalized health care off on the states through a shell game of reducing medicare costs from the federal budget and lumping it onto the individual states thus increasing their burden during Obama's recession. All will suffer and the faker-in-chief and the loons of the left care not the carnage they are trying to create. They must be stopped. No matter how they do it, ultimately we all get screwed big time.

@Oliver VanDervoort

It being what? The constitution?

As Keith Olbermann pointed out, when he was talking about this issue, if a known liberal had uttered the phrase; I don't care about the Constitution, he would have been ALL over it.

A year or so ago, a Democrat, Howard Metzenbaum (D - OH), said, "I don't care about crime, I don't care about the Constitution, I just want the guns." The comment was, as I recall, almost completely ignored by the media. That said, however, it's no more, or less, appropriate for O'Reilly to have expressed his contempt for the Constitution than for Metzenbaum to have done it. It's not a Liberal/Conservative thing. Unfortunately, it's become a common thing, especially when the Feds routinely ignore the Constitution, especially the Tenth Amendment, but also the First and Fourth.

@Dennis doublv

Napolitano is a libertarian. Non-uniformed combatants that target unarmed civilians deserve a blindfold, a cigarette and about three ounces of hot lead. When these clowns are set free by the ACLU the Arab street will be delighted.

Three ounces? That's a small-bore cannon. Kinda overkill, if you ask me... (Even heavy rifle and handgun rounds are a less than half an ounce.)