<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: &#8220;If Senator Santorum is a &#8216;strong supporter of the 10th amendment&#8217;&#8230;&#8221;	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/01/if-senator-santorum-is-a-strong-supporter-of-the-10th-amendment/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/01/if-senator-santorum-is-a-strong-supporter-of-the-10th-amendment/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:27:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hugo S. Cunningham		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/01/if-senator-santorum-is-a-strong-supporter-of-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-140391</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hugo S. Cunningham]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jan 2012 01:27:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=26640#comment-140391</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Ed is correct:  it is the Ninth Amendment that backstops libertarian &quot;rights.&quot;  The Tenth promotes collective &quot;powers,&quot; even potentially to be abused by the likes of Santorum.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ed is correct:  it is the Ninth Amendment that backstops libertarian &#8220;rights.&#8221;  The Tenth promotes collective &#8220;powers,&#8221; even potentially to be abused by the likes of Santorum.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Ed		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/01/if-senator-santorum-is-a-strong-supporter-of-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-140303</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Ed]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:25:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=26640#comment-140303</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I prefer the 9th amendment.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Just leave me alone!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I prefer the 9th amendment.</p>
<p>The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.</p>
<p>Just leave me alone!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: VMS		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2012/01/if-senator-santorum-is-a-strong-supporter-of-the-10th-amendment/comment-page-1/#comment-140295</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[VMS]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 13:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=26640#comment-140295</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Unfortunately, Constitutional interpretation was screwed up by the &quot;penumbras and emanations clause&quot; tucked in there somewhere but eclipsed by the Constitution&#039;s actual words. [I still can&#039;t find it, but see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) where Justice Douglas claimed it is in there]. Of course, Griswold paved the way to Roe v. Wade and other such cases where the Court found constitutional rights not explicitly stated. We now have a system where the Tenth Amendment does not mean what it says and the SCOTUS is unconstrained from &quot;interpreting&quot; what the law law should be.

So, if such Alice in Wonderland logic of constitutional construction and interpretation is indeed valid, then Santorum may have a point that there is a constitutional prohibition on gay marriage tucked somewhere in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution. That&#039;s not what the Constitution says, but that&#039;s what it could mean. So why should Santorum bother reading the 10th Amendment?  It is presently meaningless.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately, Constitutional interpretation was screwed up by the &#8220;penumbras and emanations clause&#8221; tucked in there somewhere but eclipsed by the Constitution&#8217;s actual words. [I still can&#8217;t find it, but see Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) where Justice Douglas claimed it is in there]. Of course, Griswold paved the way to Roe v. Wade and other such cases where the Court found constitutional rights not explicitly stated. We now have a system where the Tenth Amendment does not mean what it says and the SCOTUS is unconstrained from &#8220;interpreting&#8221; what the law law should be.</p>
<p>So, if such Alice in Wonderland logic of constitutional construction and interpretation is indeed valid, then Santorum may have a point that there is a constitutional prohibition on gay marriage tucked somewhere in the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution. That&#8217;s not what the Constitution says, but that&#8217;s what it could mean. So why should Santorum bother reading the 10th Amendment?  It is presently meaningless.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
