Politics | 03/02/2009 12:00 pm

Rush Limbaugh Bungles 'Constitution' Quote

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Rush Limbaugh needs to re-read the Constitution. Addressing the Conservative Political Action Conference this weekend, Limbaugh, a right-wing radio host who says he wants President Obama’s economic efforts to fail, accused the commander in chief of "bastardizing" the Constitution: "Aside from the bastardization of the Constitution that the Obama plans are, that TARP is, it’s not constitutional." The Huffington Post’s always-astute Sam Stein points out, however, that Limbaugh then went on to misquote the very document he was espousing:

We love and revere our founding documents, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. [Applause] We believe that the preamble to the Constitution contains an inarguable truth that we are all endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, among them life [applause] liberty, freedom [applause] and the pursuit of happiness. [Applause] Those of you watching at home may wonder why this is being applauded. We conservatives think all three are under assault.

Limbaugh may have thought he was quoting the Constitution, but he was actually — and erroneously — referring to the Declaration of Independence, which insists Americans have the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

299 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Did you ever go back and read my response to your first comment on this thread? You know, the one where I explain to you about the Constitution and the Articles of Conferation. I guess you can pretend you didn’t to make you later responses relevant.

By eleanor roche on 03/03/2009 4:29 pm

and Sarah—calm down, you are incoherent.

By eleanor roche on 03/03/2009 4:33 pm

Here are the original comments—and the comments I have been referring to.

The declaration did not give ANY rights to anyone in the United States.

The constitution (including the first near immediate 10 amendments commonly referred to as "the Bill of Rights") is the document which grants any and all rights to the citizenry. And that was only as far as the federal government went; states did not have to grant these same freedoms as found in the bill of rights.

It wasn’t until after the Civil War (nearly a century later) that anyone in this country had a guaranteed right to life, liberty, and PROPERTY (more specifically the right to be safeguarded against the deprivation of such). (14th amendment).

And even that took a few decades to stick in terms of the incorporation doctrine.

Rushie Rushie Rushie. How is it that a 28 year old who supports right to choose and gay marriage knows more about the constitution and its history than you do?

-I’ll take "because she knows comparatively less about Oxy Contin" for 200 Alex.

By Sarah N. on 03/02/2009 2:49 pm

The Constitution was not meant to "give rights" to the people. Their "rights"—as Jefferson wrote in the Dof I were "endowed by their Creator" "among them, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"— were considered inherent. The Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation and specifically outline what the federal government could and could not do. Mostly, it was to define the federal government and in a more succinct way than the articles had done. It was really about defining the federal governments role and establishing the limits of the federal government.

The Anti-Federalists believed that the Bill of Rights was necessary to protect people from a strong central government by specifically listing the rights of citizens. So the Bill of Rights was added as a compromise between the federalists and the anti-federalists to basically ensure that all the states ratified the Constitution.

By eleanor roche on 03/02/2009 5:10 pm

By eleanor roche on 03/03/2009 5:13 pm

This is it? Your big argument….is:

Sarah: The constitution IS the only document to give people rights.

Eleanor: THE CONSTITUTION WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE ABOUT RIGHTS.

Ok seriously. In your mind, you won this argument?

I say A, you scream about B, and that means I’m wrong?

LOL hopeless.

By Sarah N. on 03/03/2009 7:13 pm

e-mail alert

Sarah—first, I realize that you are embarrassed, I would be too, given that your boasting about your "law" degree would somehow shut down an argument about the origins of the Constitution. If I were you, I would get my money back.

Second, interesting how you ignore the bulk of the argument, I guess it’s the "lawyer training".

Third, here’s some advice: before you get into a pi$$ing match with someone, don’t show your hand and know your opponent. Also, try to remain calm.

Obviously, you are not interested at all in the facts. I clearly briefly stated the intent of the Constitution—most Americans don’t have a clue, if you went to law school you should know the background of the Constitution—it just shows the sad state affairs this country is in.

By eleanor roche on 03/04/2009 6:36 pm

Oh, and BTW, the reason the Federalists didn’t think is was necessary to enumerate individial rights was because they said most states had already done so—yet the anti-federalists were not convinced. They were deeply concerned about government abuses and there were some states that didn’t have a "bill of rights". So, the Constitution itself outlines our federal government—does not "grant rights". That was it’s purpose. Therefore, your assertion "any and all rights" is wrong since the founders "assumed" most of our "rights" were inherent, the bill of rights outlines "rights" insomuch as what the government can’t do to the citizenry—to stop any such abuses by an overreaching federal government and left any discrepsansies up to the states. And I didn’t even have to use "wikipedia", just my substantial brain.

By eleanor roche on 03/04/2009 7:01 pm

Oh, and one more thing, to try and imply that you "have the answer" well after you have been "check mated" shows your insecurities.

By eleanor roche on 03/04/2009 8:48 pm

eleanor,

You are AMAZING!!! Fantastic job. I love your brilliance and you are to be respected and awed!

By HA BIBI on 03/09/2009 11:58 am

e-mail alert

That’s right Eleanor. Rush loves America and Obama wants to tear it down. Will you join Rush in the streets with your shotgun? Let’s take this country back!

By Rush L on 03/02/2009 3:57 pm

e-mail alert

I look at it in a different way. Although I’m not a Rush fan (I agree and disagree with him), the new republican party will fall somewhere in the middle. Pawlenty, Sanford, and Palin will be strong contenders in 2012. Rush is but one person….and he is putting his message out there the way he feels it needs to be said.

You need to start worrying about who Obama will be running against in 2012 instead of Rush Limbaugh.

Obama’s popularity has nowhere to go but down from here…with a recession he couldn’t fix and subpar growth. The writing is on the wall…Wall Street that is.

By deber B on 03/03/2009 6:27 am

e-mail alert

Deber…I hope bho keeps his mouth shut today so maybe the stock market will go up….I love how when he speaks, they show the stock market figures right next to his head to show what affect he has on it….how sad is that man?

By Libra Lady on 03/03/2009 7:35 am

e-mail alert

deber B—"You need to start worrying about who Obama will be running against in 2012 instead of Rush Limbaugh"—EXACTLY—but they are so preoccupied with Rush, they don’t get that.

By eleanor roche on 03/04/2009 6:19 pm

And, that is a bad thing?

By Z **** on 03/03/2009 8:25 am

e-mail alert

Silly me! I thought Limpbaugh has "bungled" his whole life.

By Victoria J on 03/02/2009 3:33 pm

e-mail alert

"Education

Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class. As she told a reporter in 1992, "He just didn’t seem interested in anything except radio." "

wikipedia

By DeBúrca obj on 03/02/2009 6:55 pm