About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Why is Rush Limbaugh defending slavery?

May 10, 2010 3:58 pm ET — 51 Comments

Rush Limbaugh attacked Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan for citing former Justice Thurgood Marshall's statement that the Constitution as originally written was "defective." At no point did Limbaugh acknowledge that Marshall was saying the Constitution was "defective" because it permitted slavery and did not guarantee women's suffrage.

Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.

EMBED

Limbaugh slams Kagan for quoting Marshall

Limbaugh: "This is who Elena Kagan idolizes, Justice Marshall, who said the Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was 'defective.'" On his May 10 program, Limbaugh attacked Kagan for her citation of Marshall:

LIMBAUGH: I wanted to go even further, so here the last paragraph, we find out even more about Thurgood Marshall, who Elena Kagan idolized:

"During the year that marked the bicentennial of the Constitution, Justice Marshall gave a characteristically candid speech. He declared" -- this is a law review article that she wrote -- "he declared that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was 'defective'; only over the course of 200 years had the nation 'attain[ed] the system of constitutional government, and its respect for . . . individual freedoms and human rights, that we hold as fundamental today.' The Constitution today, the Justice continued, contains a great deal to be proud of. '[B]ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of "liberty," "justice," and "equality,'" and who strived to better them.' The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall. As the many thousands who waited on the Supreme Court steps will know, our modem Constitution is his."

So, this is who Elena Kagan idolizes, Justice Marshall, who said the Constitution as originally drafted and conceived was 'defective,' and only over the course of 200 years with people like him on the Supreme Court had it become worth anything.

Marshall stated original Constitution was "defective" because it permitted slavery

Marshall: Original Constitution was "defective," required amendments to end slavery, guarantee women's suffrage. In his May 6, 1987 speech to the San Francisco Patent and Trademark Law Association, Marshall -- the first African-American Supreme Court justice -- stated:

I cannot accept this invitation, for I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever "fixed" at the Philadelphia Convention. Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight, and sense of justice exhibited by the Framers particularly profound. To the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and momentous social transformation to attain the system of constitutional government, and its respect for the individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today. When contemporary Americans cite "The Constitution," they invoke a concept that is vastly different from what the Framers barely began to construct two centuries ago.

For a sense of the evolving nature of the Constitution we need look no further than the first three words of the document's preamble: 'We the People." When the Founding Fathers used this phrase in 1787, they did not have in mind the majority of America's citizens. "We the People" included, in the words of the Framers, "the whole Number of free Persons." On a matter so basic as the right to vote, for example, Negro slaves were excluded, although they were counted for representational purposes at threefifths each. Women did not gain the right to vote for over a hundred and thirty years.

These omissions were intentional. The record of the Framers' debates on the slave question is especially clear: The Southern States acceded to the demands of the New England States for giving Congress broad power to regulate commerce, in exchange for the right to continue the slave trade. The economic interests of the regions coalesced: New Englanders engaged in the "carrying trade" would profit from transporting slaves from Africa as well as goods produced in America by slave labor. The perpetuation of slavery ensured the primary source of wealth in the Southern States.

Despite this clear understanding of the role slavery would play in the new republic, use of the words "slaves" and "slavery" was carefully avoided in the original document. Political representation in the lower House of Congress was to be based on the population of "free Persons" in each State, plus threefifths of all "other Persons." Moral principles against slavery, for those who had them, were compromised, with no explanation of the conflicting principles for which the American Revolutionary War had ostensibly been fought: the selfevident truths "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Kagan cited Marshall's comments in tribute after his death. In a 1993 article in Texas Law Review following Marshall's death, Kagan wrote:

During the year that marked the bicentennial of the Constitution, Justice Marshall gave a characteristically candid speech. He declared that the Constitution, as originally drafted and conceived, was "defective"; only over the course of 200 years had the nation "attain[ed] the system of constitutional government, and its respect for . . . individual freedoms and human rights, we hold as fundamental today." The Constitution today, the Justice continued, contains a great deal to be proud of. "[B]ut the credit does not belong to the Framers. It belongs to those who refused to acquiesce in outdated notions of 'liberty,' 'justice,' and 'equality,' and who strived to better them." The credit, in other words, belongs to people like Justice Marshall. As the many thousands who waited on the Supreme Court steps well knew, our modem Constitution is his.

President Bush and Secretaries Powell and Rice have made statements similar to Marshall's

Bush: "Moral vision" of abolitionists led them to "correct our Constitution." In July 8, 2003, remarks made at Goree Island in Senegal, Bush said that the "moral vision" of abolitionists "caused Americans to examine our hearts, to correct our Constitution, and to teach our children the dignity and equality of every person of every race." He added: "The racial bigotry fed by slavery did not end with slavery or with segregation. And many of the issues that still trouble America have roots in the bitter experience of other times."

Rice: Slavery was the Constitution's "great birth defect." At a July 19, 2008, event at the Council on Foreign Relations, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: "In our first Constitution, my ancestors were three-fifths of a man. What does that say about American democracy at its outset? I've said it's a great birth defect. And we have had to overcome a birth defect. And, like any birth defect, it continues to have an impact on us. It's why we have such a hard time talking about race, and dealing with race."

Powell: "we could not live our Constitution truly unless we eliminated slavery." During a July 10, 2003, interview on CNN's Larry King Live, former Secretary of State Colin Powell said: "It took us a while to recognize that we could not live our Constitution truly unless we eliminated slavery, and hundreds of thousands of young men fought a civil war to end slavery and then it took us a long time to get rid of the vestiges of slavery and we're still working on it to this very day."

Limbaugh previously attacked Obama for comments similar to Marshall's

Obama in 2001: Fundamental flaw" of Constitution was that "[t]he Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity." In a September 6, 2001, interview on Chicago public radio station WBEZ on a program titled "Slavery and the Constitution," Obama explained that the "fundamental flaw" was that "[t]he Africans at the time were not considered as part of the polity that was of concern to the framers," and that the framers did not "see it as a moral problem involving persons of moral worth." He also stated that the Constitution is "a remarkable political document that paved the way for where we are now."

Limbaugh used "fundamental flaw" comment to attack Obama. On his October 27, 2008, broadcast, Limbaugh criticized Obama for saying that the Constitution reflected a "fundamental flaw," while falsely accusing Obama of saying the flaw cannot "be fixed": "How is he going to -- I asked this earlier -- how is he gonna place his hand on the Bible and swear that he, Barack Hussein Obama, will uphold the Constitution that he feels reflects the nation's fundamental flaw. Fundamental. When he talks about a fundamental flaw, he's not talking about a flaw that can be fixed. Fundamental means that this document is, from the get-go, wrong."

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by txthinker (May 10, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
      20  
      Rush Limbaugh has a "fundamental flaw" between his ears.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Bad News (May 10, 2010 5:13 pm ET)
        8 3
        Ears? As in Corn on the Cob?
        Back in the day our Ancestors would use it when there was no Toilet Tissue to do the Job.
        Corn on the Cob was also used as a Sexual Stimulant, Could Rush reach back & apply it himself?
        Naughty, Naughty, Poor Rush Limbaugh, that's one Sexual Aid that should stay on the shelf.

        Speak truth to power.


        Mr. News
        Report Abuse
      • Author by The Lonewacko Blog (May 11, 2010 6:18 pm ET)
          2
        How stupid does MMFA think you are to buy such a ludicrous claim as that in the title of this yellow "journalism"?
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Disputed Zone (May 12, 2010 12:44 am ET)
          1  
          Seems like no claim is too ludicrous for Limbaugh's stupid audience, and Limbaugh knows it.
          Report Abuse
        • Author by ScienceBuff (May 12, 2010 8:32 am ET)
          1  
          Let's see. Marshall said that the Constitution was defective because it allowed slavery, created the three fifths rule and didn't allow blacks or women to vote. Limbaugh criticized Marshall for making that statement. The only basis I can see for that criticism is that Limbaugh believes that those things were right and proper about the Constitution's original form and that he doesn't believe those were defects in it.

          Actually, Limbaugh really just wanted to bring in the term "defective" to smear Marshall and, through him, Kagan. He was counting on his listeners to be so stupid as to not care about context of Marshall's statement. What do you know? Along comes one of his supporters to show that his faith wasn't misplaced.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by AB-001 (May 10, 2010 4:04 pm ET)
      18  
      Get ready for it: "I was quoted out of context" and/or "I played the media; they fell for it."

      And blah blah blah.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by bintx (May 10, 2010 4:06 pm ET)
      16 3
      Because he's a racist. Simple.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by epkklk851 (May 10, 2010 4:21 pm ET)
        13 2
        Perhaps not, but he is certainly ignorant and appealing to the ignorant. Lots of things don't sound like what they are when taken out of context. I'm sure that Rush would take great umbridge at being called a racist, but his choosing to cherry pick a quote wildly out of context and then use to condemn a Black man like Thurgood Marshall, a great Justice, and an authentic American hero, would certainly make it appear so. (Just straining at gnats like the Dittoheads will have to to defend him.)
        Report Abuse
        • Author by bintx (May 10, 2010 4:28 pm ET)
          18 3
          Oh, no, I think Rush is a racist. He's also ignorant of history in the same way that Beck is. He's an uneducated radio DJ who makes his money telling lies.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by epkklk851 (May 10, 2010 4:37 pm ET)
            12 4
            I agree with you, he's definitely a racist. But, it does show how something can be twisted by someone. Rush's family was actually well-educated and connected, his father was a lawyer and his uncle a Judge, both were politically connected. He has no excuse like Beckie, he walked away from other opportunities to do what he does. I wonder just how much real calculation goes into his lying? I might astonish us both, as to just how well-informed he is.
            Report Abuse
          • Author by dogbreath (May 10, 2010 4:47 pm ET)
            13 1
            I think he actually is fairly intelligent. He certainly knows how to manipulate and twist his audience into a frenzy. I detest him, but I don't question his skill as a communicator. He is very good at what he does.
            Report Abuse
            • Author by AB-001 (May 10, 2010 9:48 pm ET)
              10 2
              He is very good at what he does.

              And what he does is very bad, very cruel, very insidious
              Report Abuse
            • Author by doggeddem (May 11, 2010 7:49 am ET)
              3 1
              He isn't good at all at what he does. If he were really good, his arguments would not be so easily shot down. It is the right-wing racists in this country that make him seem important. He isn't.
              Report Abuse
              • Author by NiceguyEddie (May 11, 2010 10:50 am ET)
                6 2
                He's of average intelligence, but has a certain type of exceptional charisma that appeals to people of less than average intelligence.

                He IS good at what he does, but manipulating the gullable and the ignorant is hardly a novel, or noble, profession.

                The real geniuses are the ones who recognized what a useful tool this guy could be.

                --------------------------------------------------
                IMHO
                Report Abuse
        • Author by doggeddem (May 11, 2010 7:47 am ET)
          2 1
          Rush Lumpbutt isn't capable of taking umbridge. For that you have to have a shred of human decency. He has none. He is a racist, bigoted pig. When he dies, I hope he goes to hell and spends eternity over an open pit turning slowly, and frequently being basted with jalapeno sauce.
          Report Abuse
      • Author by hugacat7374 (May 11, 2010 1:37 pm ET)
        2 1
        Not just a racist. He's also sexist, anti-Semitic, and homophobic. Which is a lethal combination when you are narcissistic & misogynistic.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by DeirdreFlanagan6 (May 10, 2010 4:19 pm ET)
      7 1
      He never explains....where would he begin?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Major Tom (May 10, 2010 4:30 pm ET)
        9 1
        Why should he? He's not losing his job or anything, and besides, look at all the free attention he's getting off the AM dial... I know someone has to call him out on thses things, but it's frusterating that it only seems to help him... The only solace I take is knowing that he has yet to have any real tangible effect on an election.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by Bad News (May 10, 2010 4:19 pm ET)
      10 3
      Well, "Bring That Old Time Religion"
      You know Slaves had Sunday off, what a wonderful Southern Tradition.
      Can't you just close your eyes & Picture Rush Limbaugh's Fat Butt on a Plantation Porch?
      Think of Rush wearing a White Hood riding his Trusty Steed holding a Runaway Slave Burners Torch.

      Speak truth to power.


      Mr. News
      Report Abuse
    • Author by H.K. Anders (May 10, 2010 4:33 pm ET)
      8 1
      "Why is Rush Limbaugh defending slavery?"

      Because he's a bastard.

      Next question (if it's about Limbaugh, the answer will probably be the same).
      Report Abuse
    • Author by ScienceBuff (May 10, 2010 4:37 pm ET)
      12 1
      C'mon, Limbaugh fans. I'd love to see you try to defend him on this.

      I hear soft muttering in the background
      "You go"
      "No, you go first"
      "Uh-uh, not me. How about you?"
      "No way, I don't know how to spin that."
      "Come on, guys, there's got to be some way to back up Rush."
      "Like what?"
      ... continued muttering.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by Ninure (May 10, 2010 5:56 pm ET)
        8 1
        His fans in the South would be quite willing and able to defend him on this.

        There's the League of the South for example, which maintains that slavery was good for Black people, and that Blacks LOVED being slaves/
        Report Abuse
        • Author by congero6189599 (May 10, 2010 6:53 pm ET)
          7 1
          It ain't only the South. ;-)
          Report Abuse
        • Author by Lord of Light (May 11, 2010 1:16 pm ET)
          1 1
          His fans in the South would be quite willing and able to defend him on this.

          The KKK was founded in Indianapolis. Plenty of idiots in the North (especially the Midwest, where I grew up) as well.
          Report Abuse
          • Author by tinka (May 11, 2010 5:02 pm ET)
            1  
            In Pulaski, Tennessee, a group of Confederate veterans convenes to form a secret society that they christen the "Ku Klux Klan." The KKK rapidly grew from a secret social fraternity to a paramilitary force bent on reversing the federal government's progressive Reconstruction Era-activities in the South, especially policies that elevated the rights of the local African American population.

            [url=http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/kkk-founded/url]
            Report Abuse
    • Author by jediknight65 (May 10, 2010 4:38 pm ET)
      9 2
      because rush is a racist?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by Porkeater (May 10, 2010 4:59 pm ET)
      13 1
      No one with the least ability to deal realistically would talk like this man does. No one who has the slightest understanding of any Constitution, let alone one that been around so long, would imagine it can stay unamended. Jefferson himself said that something made by flawed men would necessarily have flaws.

      The zero-sum mentality Limbaugh is pushing will keep America stupid, isolated, and certain to be left behind. Only see how backward the mentality made us after just eight years!
      Report Abuse
      • Author by nerzog (May 10, 2010 5:29 pm ET)
        11 3
        It's the binary thought process to which his sycophants are, by their very nature, confined. In their feeble minds, if you don't believe the founding fathers were demigods, you must be a Commie. If you don't believe that Noah literally built an ark 5,000 years ago, you must be an atheist... and a Commie. If you don't believe that all Muslims are terrorist, you must be an Islamofascist Commie.

        Rush has spawned an empire of propaganda by exploiting this simple-minded world view.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by Porkeater (May 10, 2010 5:47 pm ET)
          10 1
          It must be such an unhappy existence... either worshipful or terrified, always angry, never curious... it's 1984 come to pass!
          Report Abuse
        • Author by cugagcmu805031 (May 10, 2010 10:43 pm ET)
          6 1
          You are so right! Here in GA, the right-wingers praise Jesus, grab their guns, express their hatred for people of color, gays, and immigrants, and head to the nearest church. They will fight you to the death if you even hint that these things are incompatible.
          Report Abuse
    • Author by mls112358 (May 10, 2010 5:10 pm ET)
      9 1
      I know it's silly to try to reason with demagogues, but isn't it the case that if the Constitution were originally perfect it wouldn't have needed any provisions for amendment? It originally included such provisions, therefore the authors knew it was imperfect when they wrote it.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by iNova (May 10, 2010 5:14 pm ET)
      8 1
      I know the answer!

      Hmmm because he is racist?
      Report Abuse
      • Author by ronjohn27 (May 11, 2010 4:46 pm ET)
        1  
        I don't think rush is a racist...what he is is a smart money making opportunist that plays on the bigotry, idiocy, stupidity of his racist listeners to make a ton of money. He has expertly honed his skills and arranged his talking points and skits to present and say what an already biased audience wants to hear and pay him to say. He doesn't believe what he says, and unfortunately does not care how destructive he is to the country. He wants us to hate him, because the more we do, the more his listeners love him. His listeners are too stupid and biased to see this.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by fantagor (May 10, 2010 5:48 pm ET)
      11 1
      Rush Limbaugh, professional victim, often complains about being taken out of context and then proceeds to obliterate the context of a SC justice stating the obvious, that the Constitution had out of box flaws such as saying black people are 3/5 a person, permitting slavery and disenfranchising women.

      I guess Rush serves the following purposes:

      1. To remind us that the American meritocracy is stone effing dead.
      2. To lower the standards in all areas of human discourse.
      3. To engender feelings of hopelessness to boost the sales of booze and pills.

      Randy
      Report Abuse
    • Author by newzhound (May 10, 2010 9:08 pm ET)
      8 2
      Boss BlunderRush said "... only over the course of 200 years with people like him on the Supreme Court had it become worth anything."

      This is so typical. That's not what Justice Marshall said. But that's what BlunderRush said he said.

      Sheer "Am i An Idiot?" InSannity uses the same trick.

      And the rubes and the gulls continue to fall for it...
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jcalton (May 10, 2010 11:28 pm ET)
      6 1
      Limbaugh couldn't hold a candle to Thurgood Marshall. If he had a jockstrap, Rush couldn't carry that, either.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by doggeddem (May 11, 2010 7:44 am ET)
      4 1
      Limbaugh is a liar who never makes retractions. He only picks and chooses what he wants the public to know. For example there was a number in the recent rise in jobs. There were sixty-six thousand hired to be census takers (obviously jobs created by racist bigots like Michelle Bachmann who refused to fill out the mailed forms) and 231,000 private sector jobs. He used the 66,000 number as the number of private sector jobs. What's the problem,eh? So who cares if 75% of the jobs created were private sector jobs? He did get the 66k right, didn't he? Anyone, besides fact checkers and truth-tellers, who listens to this bag of fascist wind isn't interested in reality anyway. He and his audience are just contributors to the same pile of manure.
      Report Abuse
      • Author by latichever (May 11, 2010 10:09 am ET)
        4 1
        The founders themselves knew the Constitution wasn't perfect, which is why they included an amendment process. Early on, they realized they had a problem when they added the Bill of Rights--including the 2nd ammendment so beloved by dittoheads.

        Maybe Rush also like the fact that the original did not allow for the direct election of Senators or female suffrage either--changes that did not occur until well more than a century after ratification.

        Or to put it more simply: Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by PastyJournalist (May 11, 2010 10:48 am ET)
      2  
      It must suck to paint yourself into a corner to the point where you have to dis Thurgood Marshall.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by mcnairbo6573 (May 11, 2010 11:38 am ET)
      4 1
      Limbaugh doesn't dig too deep. He gets the quotes and talking points from the Heritage Foundation via e-mail and reads them on the air without knowing what he's actually saying. He's a tool.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by jimmy678 (May 11, 2010 2:16 pm ET)
      1 3
      He was not defending slavery. He was trying to illustrate the point that activist judges are arrogant and believe they are greater than the founding fathers. This may or may not apply to Elena, but it matters not to you anymore than it does to him - he seems convinced she is a marxist/socialist/liberal bigot, just like you seem convinced he is a republican/conservative/racist bigot.
      Report Abuse
    • Author by johnbrown (May 11, 2010 4:45 pm ET)
      2  
      another example of limbaugh misleading his audience
      Report Abuse