Does Glenn Beck support the slave trade or is he just an "idiot"?
In a chapter in his new book purporting to explain to "idiots" what "our Founding Fathers really intended," Glenn Beck praises an obsolete provision of the U.S. Constitution that prohibited Congress from outlawing the slave trade before 1808 and capped taxes on the slave trade at $10 per slave. In his explanation of the provision, Beck does not mention slavery, saying instead that the provision means that the Founders apparently "felt like there was a value to being able to live here" and lamenting: "Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws."
Beck claims to provide authoritative explanation of Constitution's meaning
Beck explains to "idiots" what "our Founding Fathers really intended" in the Constitution. In the introduction to a chapter titled, "The U.S. Constitution: Lost in Translation," Beck mocks "idiots" who don't share his interpretation of the Constitution:
How many times have you argued with your idiot friends about what's constitutional and what isn't? You may even show them the Constitution, but the disagreement continues. That made me think that maybe the problem is that the entire Constitution is written in English -- a language that is very difficult for the average idiot to comprehend. In addition, there are several words in the document longer than three letters, making it a tougher read than the "Dick and Jane" books they normally struggle through.
What follows is a translation (from English to Idiot) of several important parts of the U.S. Constitution, leaving no doubt as to what our Founding Fathers really intended. [Beck, et. al, Arguing With Idiots, Page 267]
Beck praises constitutional provision protecting slave trade
Beck praises "Migration or Importation" tax provision in taking cheap shot at "immigrants." In the chapter, Beck reprints and then praises Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution. Beck specifically highlights in yellow the phrase "ten dollars for each person":
Section 9. The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here. Not anymore. These days we can't ask anything of immigrants -- including that they abide by our laws. [Arguing with Idiots, Page 278]

Provision Beck praised actually "barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808." As noted by Yale Law School professor Akhil Reed Amar: "To make matters worse, despite the new Congress's general Article I, section 8 power over international commerce, section 9 barred Congress from ending the international slave trade before 1808. By that time, the Deep South hoped to have enough extra muscle in Congress, based on white migration and slave importation, to thwart any possible antislavery constitutional amendments and perhaps even to weaken any proposed ban on further slave importation. ... [T]he 1808 date itself was exempt from constitutional amendment under Article V." [Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography, Page 91]
"$10 per person" provision Beck praised incentivized slave trade. According to Amar: "The big money would likely flow [to the federal government] -- and after 1789 did in fact flow -- from federal levies on imports, yet these levies fell outside the ambit of the three-fifths clause. Indeed, by capping pre-1808 federal taxes at ten dollars per imported slave, Article I gave slave importers a special twenty-year exemption from the plenary taxation power that Congress would enjoy over all other imports." [Amar, America's Constitution: A Biography, Page 94]
Constitutional Convention delegate recognized that "$10 per person" provision protected slave trade. According to James Madison's notes from the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman -- who supported the 1808 clause and other efforts by the South to protect slavery in the Constitution -- recognized that the $10 tax limit that Beck highlighted prevented Congress from taxing the slave trade out of existence. According to Madison, Sherman "observed that the smallness of the duty shewed revenue to be the object, not the discouragement of the importation."
Later in book, Beck acknowledges the provision he praised protected the slave trade. Later in Arguing with Idiots, Beck writes: "Article 1, Section 9 had allowed twenty years of further slave trade, a length of time that many Founders hoped would be sufficient for the South to wean itself from the horrendous practice. But even after the importation of new slaves stopped in 1808, the South was so dependent upon slavery that it was unwilling to let it go." [Arguing with Idiots, Page 294]















The simple answer... NONE!
Since Fox Noise has no Constitutional law professors (Okay... there is Judge Napalitano, but he has proven his uselessness more than once) and only one cheap lawyer (Greta), (if there are others, I neither care nor want to know about them) who have any vague amount of educational background to speak about it...
(To sneak in an Olbermann plug for a moment... this is exactly why he invites real Constitutional experts like Jonathon Turley to talk about the Constitution)
...Glenn must be under the impression that he has a brain!
why do you believe we are one of the sources of evil.
why do you believe the founding fathers of our country were facist.
What is your vision for the futhur of our country? which way should we go ?
The Constitution WAS written by a bunch of white racist slave owners. It was the accepted viewpoint of the times. We should all KNOW better.
Slavery was abolished by Thirteenth Amendment and a civil war at cost of 700,000 lives. Let ask the essential question, do you believe the constitution is flawed, the foundation and intuitions of this country are wrong, if your answer is yes, what do you suggest should replace it.
And your quote that all men are created equal showing that these men were not racists, in addition to being terribly naive, also ignore the Constitution, where it makes clear that Blacks are to be considered 3/5 of a person. Those certainly are the actions of racists, whether they were in favor of slavery or not.
I will further say that I find it disingenuous to cite the Declaration of Independence (which has exactly NOTHING to do with law AT ALL) as evidence of a lack of racism. If I write something that says, "I believe any adults should be free to marry any other consenting adult." but I vote for a law making it illegal for Blacks to marry Whites, do you believe my pretty words or my actions? You seem relatively intelligent, so I cannot believe you don't see the difference.
I think you earlier asked if we believed the U.S. was the a source of evil. Certainly we are. Certainly any nation has that capacity. Would you argue that holding up Middle East dictators like Saddam Hussein, the Saudi royal family, etc. is not an evil? The people in those countries certainly do. Slavery was one of those evils, and the U.S. was by no means among the first countries to get rid of it. Our treatment of Native Americans is another. Certainly you do not deny these were evils, and were perpetrated by our country.
And we are not talking just college professors, but constitutional lawyers to discuss constitutional law. Ok, add historians to discuss the history of the constitution.
It is hard for us to comprehend what the mass thinking of European/colonists was regarding race and culture, and how that has evolved. Just as in the future it will be hard to comprehend why a dolt like Glen Beck had a television show and people actually watched it.
Hey, Joe, I'm not from the left anymore than you are from the right. Watching Fox does not make you a conservative, just makes you a Fox groupie. Criticizing the bs on Fox doesn't make someone a member of the "left," just makes them smarter than you.
You forgot to mention Tom Delay and Oliver North, two more Fox contributors. If any other network ever tried to staff their shows with so many indicted, and in many cases convicted, felons, the right would be in a frenzy. Why doesn't Fox News ever have to defend or even address the fact that so many of its regular contributors have so much questionable history? The most galling example is Dick Morris. How can they have him on so often to trash the Democrats, and most especially the Clintons, without some kind of a disclaimer that "Dick Morris was formerly a close advisor to the Clintons who was dismissed following revelations of his cavorting with prostitutes (if indeed toe-sucking can be defined as cavorting), and he has been on the attack against the Clintons and all other Democrats since that time."
Blows me away that Fox viewers consider these folks legitimate and trustworthy.
Misspelling arrogance, neglecting punctuation, ignoring common rules of syntax and conflating disparate groups in an attempt to create a combined question fallacy about the legitimacy of their activities isn’t the way educated people argue. Hence, it’s unlikely that educated people will accept your judgment on either the style or the content of their arguments.
How EVIL of you to back this uneducated talking head.
Furthermore, Kelly and Coulter are lawyers, but that doesn't mean they're good ones or that they're incapable of putting good brains to bad use. Remember, you're talking about Fox News. Guys like Beck and Hannity make it to the top not because they're educated but because they and their production teams know how to play to a crowd and also to what crowd they're playing.
Nah... that will never happen.
Beck, based upon his comments, knows little, if anything about the Constitution.
So who but the government should regulate the militia?
It's apparent from your post that you either a) haven't really read them, or b) don't understand that "very old language" called English.
Link
It's not even "Middle English" which was spoken prior to Modern English.
From the prologue of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales:
Whan that aprill with his shoures soote
The droghte of march hath perced to the roote,
And bathed every veyne in swich licour
Of which vertu engendred is the flour;
Obviously, neither of your "degrees" involved advanced English . . . of course, I learned this in Sophomore Honors English class in HIGH SCHOOL!
And bathe every veyne in swich licour ;-)
You really need to learn how to read that "very old language" called English.
ok pumpkin. 'nuf said about that.
From the constitutional description of the authority of the congress:
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."
IOW, the state governments run the militias under the rules set by the feds.
The General Welfare is a general term, but welfare as you say it's not existed in this country before there was this country.
Instead of learning from a post, starkcr31 will just look at typos and avoid the subject.
Our Constitution is a living document. As with any living thing, it grows. From infancy to maturity, we are still in adolescence. Mr. Beck is not far from diapers, as his shortsighted views abundantly prove. Why is he attempting to regress our nation's growth? Amendments show a pattern of maturity! Will his favored candidate(s) reverse our progress? Mr.Beck appears to be vying for such person(s), with his jostling odium.
Glenn Beck is pandering to hate, wanting things to be like the old days. He is representative of that mind-set, and his frightened viewership certainly believe. Dirt on skin can be washed away, only to return, as life goes. Will we skip the cleanse, and allow the stench of racism to fester?
It be it,
Ronin Kannushi.
Government is only legitimate if is "by the people and for the people". We are not ruled by dead white men or old faded documents.
Because of amendments to that document, as well as the 3 branches of government providing multiple interpretations of the document, we are the nation we are today. If you only revere the original document and reject the multiple changes that have changed the way we see the direction that document gave us, then it's you, Highliter, who is the unAmerican one in this discussion. If you want us to be subservient to the faded document and not to the 233 years of history since then, then you are not patriotic.
Kudos! The Constitution was established as an objective document. Both sides of the isle, historically, are short-minded when special interests derail its intended purpose. Woman's rights, the right for all to vote, unreasonable searches, etc., further refine the original intent. As mentioned above, by and for the people, is a legitimate assertion. We the people are lax in attention, some knowing the outcome is misguided by prostitutes,(Congressmen), to special interest. Indeed Congress is a brothel of fools, with excuses, stories, lies, vying for reelection.
Best wishes,
Ronin Kanushi.
Kudos! The Constitution was established as an objective document. Both sides of the isle, historically, are short-minded when special interests derail its intended purpose. Woman's rights, the right for all to vote, unreasonable searches, etc., further refine the original intent. As mentioned above, by and for the people, is a legitimate assertion. We the people are lax in attention, some knowing the outcome is misguided by prostitutes,(Congressmen), to special interest. Indeed Congress is a brothel of fools, with excuses, stories, lies, vying for reelection.
Best wishes,
Ronin Kanushi.
He's the same age as Obama.
Chronological age maybe, mental age . . . not so much.
Our Constitution is a living document. As with any living thing, it grows. From infancy to maturity, we are still in adolescence. Mr. Beck is not far from diapers, as his shortsighted views abundantly prove. Why is he attempting to regress our nation's growth? Amendments show a pattern of maturity! Will his favored candidate(s) reverse our progress? Mr.Beck appears to be vying for such person(s), with his jostling odium.
Glenn Beck is pandering to hate, wanting things to be like the old days. He is representative of that mind-set, and his frightened viewership certainly believe. Dirt on skin can be washed away, only to return, as life goes. Will we skip the cleanse, and allow the stench of racism to fester?
It be it,
Ronin Kannushi.
Beck must have a deep-seeded hatred of black people. He's called the black President a racist without any proof and he now supports slavery.
So, if Beck supports slavery does that mean that Fox supports it as well?
Was I overcharged?
2.) Actually reading his nonsense seems like it would be absolute torture. I'd rather be waterboarded, personally.
The white power groups are being empowered by broadcasters like these and this can do lead to anything but violence and events that will cause this nation great pain.
For all of the allegations about taking things out of context I am surprised you make the same mistake yourself...
Yes, the Constitution was flawed, but those were the costs of getting the otherwise very best Constitution this world has ever seen, and none of the quotes here suggest that was a good thing!
I guess this person doesn't understand that MMFA doesn't really think he does, and is making wordplay with the book's title and FoxNews' habit of asking loaded questions.
It's pretty clear if you read the article which of those two things is true.
Each statement cited is complete in its meaning. For instance the quote from page 278 above is shown IN CONTEXT with Article 1, Section 9.
You might want to go back and study that "very old language."
What else could it be about? Were they charging EVERYBODY 10 dollars to come to the United States?
I love ignorance with bravado. It's cute, but wrong nontheless.
By the way, it's clear that Beck is not an immigrant. "These days we can't ask anything of immigrants" is simply false - has he checked the fees for naturalization lately?
Let's just say they're slightly more than $10.
We all know it expired in 1808. We read the article. You should try it sometime, you know, before you start attacking.
Remember to Liberals the constitution is only a old faded document wrote by dead white men.
Find actual historical documents to research.
You're taking a couple of quotes, from a couple of liberals, and going from that particular to a completely idiotic universal. You should be on Fox.
By your logic, or lack of it, all the "conservatives" screaming about the sanctity of the Constitution are total hypocrites, because George W. Bush, in the Oval Office called the Constitution a "goddam scrap of paper." Obviously, he spoke for you all.
Actually, I'm sure he didn't, just as I'm sure you can reference your letters to the editor, etc., from the time, voicing your outrage and eternal fealty to said document.
That's true, but it wasn't an answer to Wildcat's question, so I will repeat and rephrase:
1.) Do you favor slavery?
2.) Do you believe that African-Americans are inferior to whites?
However, over the past 233 years, there have been many new, white pages added by a diverse group of men and women to make it more in keeping with society as it existed during their times.
Your newly acquired "talking point" falls short.
Highliter, is that better or worse than calling it an "old faded document wrote (sic) by dead white men."?
That said, the original US constitution is indeed a marvel of intelligent arguments for how and why government should be run. It's not without faults obviously - it's a man-made document, and they never are and never will be. But it really is a magnificent piece of work. What always amazes me though is why modern-day right-wingers like it. Besides the 2nd and 10th amendments, is there any other parts of it that they actually care about?
You are effective and can rightfully avoid the label of hate site, smear site, wacko leftist site, etc. by keeping your head up and maintaining your attacks on word and deed alone.
The minute you start with imagery and labels, that's the first step on the slippery slope to becoming like those you criticize.
Personally I think the picture is in poor taste, but if Beck put himself in the position to have that picture taken, I think it is fair game.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.diggerhistory.info/images/uniforms4/Luftwaffe.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/germany2.htm&usg=__CFgN2_Oif64XYcSq0zf4nmsMfRE=&h=1204&w=1006&sz=361&hl=en&start=3&um=1&tbnid=rRseGUF12YMq9M:&tbnh=150&tbnw=125&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dnazi%2Bluftwaffe%2Buniforms%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26um%3D1
"The Joker came to mind as well, especially the line about being like a dog chasing a car and not knowing what he would do if he caught it. "
Remember: Hitler started as just a less-than-mediocre painter..
(Loss of argument according to Academic Standards is acknowledged and accepted.)
It's stunning. I could have written this, in reference to arguing with idiots like Beck and his ilk.
------------------------------------------------------------------
What an idiot.
Glenn Beck's credentials are irrelevant.
Sorry folks, you aren't going find answers to life’s questions on his show, in the constitution, in the bible, or on this website.
So it's like a Romper Room taunt guide for drooling sheep? Hundreds of pages of it?
And millions of people will buy this?
And then think that having read it makes the the smart ones?
And then they'll ridicule others based on having read it?
I weep for the future.
We then see numerous knee-jerk posts about how Beck is pro-slavery when he clearly describes it as a horrendous practice.
C'mon people. Read the entire article before posting your hate-filled rants.
Correct. However, on this site's front page the link to this article reads "Beck Praises Constitutional Provision Protecting Slave Trade." This proceeds to get everyone riled up about how Beck is pro-slavery, when he clearly states that the practice is horrendous. Not to mention the question is loaded as in "Do you still beat your wife?" Anyway, my point is that MMFA uses the same tactics as the people they criticize. They highlight the parts of the story that are in their favor, and overlook or downplay anything that doesn't. Both sides do it.
The Constitution mandates a convention call if two-thirds or 34 states so apply. All 50 states have submitted 750 applications for a convention. The texts of the applications can be read at www.foavc.org.
Mr. Beck believes the government has the right to veto the Constitution and has so stated. He should, on that basis alone, be rejected by all Americans, left or right, who believe the Constitution must be obeyed. There is no room for people like him to who believe in selective enforcement of the Constitution.
Yes
The title of this piece creates a false dichotomy. It is entirely possible that he could both support the slave trade and be an idiot. In fact, it seems entirely likely.
Before the Constitution, any state could import slaves forever.
After the Constitution, the slave trade could, and was, prohibited in 1808.
Also, before the Constitution, under the Articles of Confederation, the federal government received no tax money on imported slaves. After the Constitution, they received $10. Thus each slaves imported was $10 out of the hands of evil slave traders, and $10 into the hands of George Washington's new government.
Ending the importation of slaves was viewed in those times as the first step to getting rid of the evil of slavery, much the same way legalizing medical marijuana is viewed as the first step in getting rid of the evil Drug War.
Both are modest first steps, but first steps none-the-less. Even modest steps in ridding us from evil are difficult, as medical marijuana contines to be illegal despite polls showing it has 75% support.
PS
At the Constitutional Convention, the orginal deal was get get rid of the slave trade by 1800. But a couple deep south delegates got that pushed back to 1808, after a committee report. When James Madison heard that, he said; "What the fu**!?!? 20 years?!?!"
It is good to see that MMFA can read.
First Beck calls President Obama a "racist with a deep-seated hatred of white people" -- without presenting one single shred of evidence to back him up. That's SLANDER and DEFAMATION, Mr. Beck, for which you richly deserve to be sued.
Then Limbaugh calls for the reimposition of racial segregation on school buses -- which has been illegal under a host of court rulings and federal and state laws for more than 50 years. By doing so, Limbaugh violated an FCC rule that bars broadcasters from openly advocating illegal activity.
Now Beck has praised a section of the Constitution that barred Congress from outlawing slavery -- a section that was subsequently overrruled by the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Beck and Limbaugh MUST be held accountable. As far as I'm concerned, they are NOT conservatives. They are far right-wing, xenophobic demagogues. True conservatives do not engage in race-baiting.
One can be sure that a rag like Time won't look closely at his quotes or cites either. Look back at how the magazine treated the Coulter. Most of her footnotes, as Bob Somerby has pointed out at The Daily Howler are wrong. She simply lies in the faces of her readers and they lap it up.
Glenn is little different in that the purpose of the book(s) isn't to inform it's to misinform.
That's not even mentioning the incredible irony in the fact that his book is titled "Arguing with Idiots" and he can't even grasp the meaning of a paragraph in the Constitution whose meaning is obvious to everyone else (except his minions). "Importation" - means slaves you moron! Not immigrants.
"That's right, the Founders actually put a price tag on coming to this country: $10 per person. Apparently they felt like there was a value to being able to live here."
That's a ceiling, not a floor, moron. As in $0 - $10 allowed. Apparently the founding fathers wanted to be sure everyone knew it's not worth much to live here.
BWAHAHABWAHAHA!!!
Sticking up for slavery Becky?
Finally, the truth comes out-unvarnished.
To borrow Bill Maher:
You are a schitzophrenic, Becky.
Thomas Jefferson, though he thought Blacks and Whites would never get along, decided that in the Constitution slavery should be outlawed.
The Southern states decided that they as a whole were not going to ratify the Constitution unless Jefferson left that out.
Now, I understand the time period. Also understand that even though Jefferson thought the races were unequal, he believed that no Man or Woman should be in servitude.
Glenn Beck is a joke, and a blight on the American Landscape. McCarthy must be laughing somewhere. Here we go again! Just like the 50's.