Julia Louis-Dreyfus' Naked 'Rolling Stone' Cover Rewrites History -- Incorrectly!

Rolling StoneShe may be the First Lady of comedy, but it looks like Julia Louis-Dreyfus could use a history lesson. The Emmy winner looks smoking hot on the latest cover of Rolling Stone magazine, looking years decades younger than her 53 years.

She's buck-nekkid, back to the camera, looking over her shoulder as she cups her breasts. The only thing she's "wearing" is a (hopefully fake) tattoo of the preamble of the United States Constitution -- a nod to her HBO series, Veep. Right above her hiney is John Hancock's John Hancock, just so we can be very clear that the scrawling on her back is in fact a freedom-y document.


Only problem with that is that John Hancock didn't actually sign the Constitution. Nope, the founding father and president of the Second Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence. His signature on that document was so big and bold that his name is now synonymous for "signature."

Whoops. The actress did say about the cover, "In my defense, 'I was in a drunken stupor,'" which may explain the nudity, but was the editorial team at Rolling Stone drunk too?

I mean, how many layers of editing and approval did that have to go through before it hit news stands? There wasn't one copyeditor that knew that John Hancock was famous for signing the Declaration and thought to check if he was one of the handful of patriots that signed both that and the Constitution?

It's a sad day for America, my friends.

In other news, John Hancock has never been so popular! Let's chalk this up to a mini-history lesson and try not to assume that everyone over at Rolling Stone doesn't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Mistakes were made. Moving on.

Did you know that John Hancock didn't sign the Constitution?


Image via Rolling Stone

Read More >