Constitution tattoo mistake mars 'Rolling Stone' cover

Constitution tattoo: Actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus had the US Constitution temporarily tattooed on her back for the latest issue of 'Rolling Stone' magazine. But there's a small problem with the Constitution tattoo.

Mark Seliger, Rolling Stone/AP
Constitution tattoo: This undated photo released by Rolling Stone shows the cover of the April 24, 2014 issue of Rolling Stone magazine featuring actress Julia Louis-Dreyfus, photographed by Mark Seliger for Rolling Stone. The cover image features the "Veep" star nude with a tattoo of the US Constitution signed by John Hancock across her bare back.

Julia Louis-Dreyfus better hope her latest tattoo is a temporary one.

The cover image of next month's Rolling Stone magazine featuring the "Veep" star depicts a nude Louis-Dreyfus with a tattoo of the US Constitution signed by John Hancock across her back. The problem is Hancock signed the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

Louis-Dreyfus jokingly blamed the blunder on Mike McClintock, the fictional "Veep" character played by Matt Walsh who serves as communications director to Louis-Dreyfus' Vice President Selina Meyer on the HBO comedy series.

"Yet another Mike (expletive)," the 53-year-old actress posted Wednesday on Twitter. "Dummy."

The National Constitution Center in Philadelphia mocked the flub by tweeting a photo of the cover alongside such Founding Fathers as George Washington and Benjamin Franklin in Signers' Hall with the words, "Thanks for the shoutout but no Hancock here."

Rolling Stone spokeswoman Melissa Bruno said the Declaration of the Independence is on the other side of Louis-Dreyfus' body, but they couldn't fit in the signatures.

Inside the magazine, another image shot by photographer Mark Seliger shows a man in a colonial wig tattooing Hancock's signature above the bare bottom of the Seinfeld actress,

"I'm a perfectionist in my work," Louis-Dreyfus notes in the magazine's cover story. "I think I might drive people nuts. I don't ask them, because I don't need that (expletive) on top of how I'm feeling."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.