<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.3" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Obama and Congress &#8216;diss&#8217; the US Constitution</title>
	<link>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/obama-and-congress-diss-the-us-constitution/</link>
	<description>To build consensus on issues</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 02:49:28 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.3</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Stanford Matthews</title>
		<link>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/obama-and-congress-diss-the-us-constitution/#comment-21470</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 01:15:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/obama-and-congress-diss-the-us-constitution/#comment-21470</guid>
					<description>Towns makes an argument that is not entirely without merit.  Using the precedent angle can be effecitve.  But my problem with that comes from a very simple phrase....two wrongs don't make a right

And neither do three, four or more.

If the precedent enables passing laws that are contrary to the intent of the US Constitution I don't care how many clones at the Justice Dept or even SCOTUS try to convince me it is right. It simply is not.

Once you say 'this is okay' then everything becomes okay if you are not interested in adhering to the founding principles.

To Maggie, my most loyal reader:
Thanks a bunch.  Your opinion is absolutely valued here.

Hey folks, click on Maggies' name link, she does some incredible work. A blog to serve as a template for informed expression on public discourse.

And no Maggie, I'm not blowin' smoke</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Towns makes an argument that is not entirely without merit.  Using the precedent angle can be effecitve.  But my problem with that comes from a very simple phrase&#8230;.two wrongs don&#8217;t make a right</p>
<p>And neither do three, four or more.</p>
<p>If the precedent enables passing laws that are contrary to the intent of the US Constitution I don&#8217;t care how many clones at the Justice Dept or even SCOTUS try to convince me it is right. It simply is not.</p>
<p>Once you say &#8216;this is okay&#8217; then everything becomes okay if you are not interested in adhering to the founding principles.</p>
<p>To Maggie, my most loyal reader:<br />
Thanks a bunch.  Your opinion is absolutely valued here.</p>
<p>Hey folks, click on Maggies&#8217; name link, she does some incredible work. A blog to serve as a template for informed expression on public discourse.</p>
<p>And no Maggie, I&#8217;m not blowin&#8217; smoke
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Maggie Thornton</title>
		<link>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/obama-and-congress-diss-the-us-constitution/#comment-21468</link>
		<pubDate>Tue, 11 Aug 2009 00:57:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://morewhat.com/wordpress/obama-and-congress-diss-the-us-constitution/#comment-21468</guid>
					<description>I don't think precedent ever equals meeting the test of constitutionality. &quot;Back in the day,&quot; few knew what was happening. Now we all know. It should make a difference, and we should hold some feet to the fire. Hillary marched into her office unchallenged.

This is long standing - going back to immigration in 1800's.

Good article. There are so many things we forget about.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t think precedent ever equals meeting the test of constitutionality. &#8220;Back in the day,&#8221; few knew what was happening. Now we all know. It should make a difference, and we should hold some feet to the fire. Hillary marched into her office unchallenged.</p>
<p>This is long standing - going back to immigration in 1800&#8217;s.</p>
<p>Good article. There are so many things we forget about.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

