<?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: The power to describe what a ballot proposition does	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/04/power-describe-ballot-proposition/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/04/power-describe-ballot-proposition/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 02:38:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hugo S Cunningham		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/04/power-describe-ballot-proposition/comment-page-1/#comment-345471</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hugo S Cunningham]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Apr 2017 02:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=64059#comment-345471</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Aside from the partisanship of California Secretaries of State, a problem is posed by the ambiguity of &quot;Constitution&quot;:  are you talking about the Federal one where &quot;rights&quot; matter (eg freedom of speech and religion, freedom from unreasonable  searches and seizures, due process, etc), or about the State one, where rights not already covered by the Federal one may be questionable?

One could require ballot summaries to use the phrase &quot;State Constitution&quot; when that is what is meant. It should also be possible to get Federal judicial review when a questionable assertion about the Federal Constitution is made]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aside from the partisanship of California Secretaries of State, a problem is posed by the ambiguity of &#8220;Constitution&#8221;:  are you talking about the Federal one where &#8220;rights&#8221; matter (eg freedom of speech and religion, freedom from unreasonable  searches and seizures, due process, etc), or about the State one, where rights not already covered by the Federal one may be questionable?</p>
<p>One could require ballot summaries to use the phrase &#8220;State Constitution&#8221; when that is what is meant. It should also be possible to get Federal judicial review when a questionable assertion about the Federal Constitution is made</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
