We've previously pointed out that Glenn Beck has a very faulty understanding of our nation' founding. For instance, Beck has defended the odious three-fifths compromise as “a way to take a step to abolish slavery,” and praised the constitutional provision that protected the slave trade prior to 1808.

Beck, however, is going to continue to play historian (and egomaniac) and is set to release The Original Argument, a rewrite of the Federalist Papers for today's audience. On his radio show, he billed The Original Argument as an “easy way to understand” what the Founders were thinking.

But if early signs are any indication, Beck has no idea what the Federalist Papers actually say.

Today, Beck quoted from the part of his book describing James Madison's Federalist No. 39:

BECK: [I]f you read the Federalist Papers, it's damn near impossible. I mean, listen to this: No. 39, here's what the Founders wrote. This is the top of it: “How the Constitution conforms to republican principles, an examination of the objection to the powers of the convention.” What the hell does that even mean? Translation of Federalist No. 39, we wrote: “The message: The government created by the Constitution is a republic, not a democracy. And the government derives its powers directly from the people, not merely the elite, dude.”

To the extent that Beck's explanation is comprehensible, it's almost completely wrong.

First, in Federalist No. 39, Madison did not say that our government “derives its powers directly from the people.” Rather, he said that our government derives its power “directly or indirectly” from the people.

Nor does Madison say that the Constitution does not set up “a democracy.” That's actually an argument that Beck likes to make.

The first part of Federalist No. 39 is devoted to arguing that the government established by the Constitution is a republic. Madison did this not to argue against those who would prefer a direct democracy but, rather to defend the Constitution from charges that it did not sufficiently “adhere to the republican form.” In other words, Madison argued that the Constitution does involve governance by the people, not that this governance is very limited.

(The second part of Federalist No. 39 is devoted to arguing that the Constitution did not set up a truly “national government” but, rather, a hybrid federal/national government.)

Here's an excerpt:

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.

[...]

On comparing the Constitution planned by the convention with the standard here fixed, we perceive at once that it is, in the most rigid sense, conformable to it. The House of Representatives, like that of one branch at least of all the State legislatures, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. The Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointment indirectly from the people. The President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the States. Even the judges, with all other officers of the Union, will, as in the several States, be the choice, though a remote choice, of the people themselves, the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard, and to the model of State constitutions.

[...]

“But it was not sufficient,” say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, “for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the federal form, which regards the Union as a confederacy of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of the States.”

So to sum up: Beck doesn't want you to read what the Founders actually said. (Beck's condescending comments notwithstanding, Federalist No. 39 is actually not that hard to understand.) Beck would rather have you read what Beck said they said. And -- surprise, surprise -- Beck thinks the Founders said the exact same things that he's been saying.