<?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/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Pelosi: Constitutionality of individual mandates not &#8220;serious&#8221; question</title>
	<atom:link href="http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/</link>
	<description>The world’s first, full-service conservative Internet broadcast network</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 May 2012 06:36:43 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cold Fury &#187; An &#8220;oath&#8221; that means nothing</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-3439635</link>
		<dc:creator>Cold Fury &#187; An &#8220;oath&#8221; that means nothing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 12:28:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-3439635</guid>
		<description>[...] this: CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] this: CNSNews.com: “Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Weekly Roundup - Seton Hall College Republicans</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2893035</link>
		<dc:creator>Weekly Roundup - Seton Hall College Republicans</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 23:47:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2893035</guid>
		<description>[...] Individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi: &#8220;Seriously?&#8221; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Individual insurance mandate is unconstitutional. Nancy Pelosi: &#8220;Seriously?&#8221; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Army Brat</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2873432</link>
		<dc:creator>Army Brat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 23:50:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2873432</guid>
		<description>One must first take the Constitution seriously before one can take a question regarding same as serious.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>One must first take the Constitution seriously before one can take a question regarding same as serious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Maybe the Problem is that Pelosi&#8217;s not a Serious Legislator? &#171; The Baby Seal Club</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2872647</link>
		<dc:creator>Maybe the Problem is that Pelosi&#8217;s not a Serious Legislator? &#171; The Baby Seal Club</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2872647</guid>
		<description>[...] Maybe the Problem is that Pelosi&#8217;s not a Serious&#160;Legislator?  Jump to Comments  Via Hot Air, proof that Nancy Pelosi needs to retake 8th grade Civics, [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Maybe the Problem is that Pelosi&#8217;s not a Serious&nbsp;Legislator?  Jump to Comments  Via Hot Air, proof that Nancy Pelosi needs to retake 8th grade Civics, [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PatriotPete</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2871295</link>
		<dc:creator>PatriotPete</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:22:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2871295</guid>
		<description>California&#039;s elected officialsnew movie starring Pelosi, et al - the Land that Minds Forgot</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>California&#8217;s elected officialsnew movie starring Pelosi, et al &#8211; the Land that Minds Forgot</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is ABC offering strategic, deniable editorializing… &#124; WTF?! Obama</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2870937</link>
		<dc:creator>Is ABC offering strategic, deniable editorializing… &#124; WTF?! Obama</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 02:55:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2870937</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8230;with their logo placement (via Hot Air)? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8230;with their logo placement (via Hot Air)? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pannw</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2870817</link>
		<dc:creator>pannw</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2870817</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority.  &lt;strong&gt;It’s not exactly a lengthy document.&lt;/strong&gt; &lt;/blockquote&gt; 

Yes, and it served us so well for so long, yet our idiots in Congress now write single bills that are a hundred times longer than the entire Constitution so they can tuck all sorts of crap into them (homosexuals added to &lt;em&gt;hate crimes &lt;/em&gt;in a defense bill?  ARGHH!).  There is something so fundamentally wrong with what our government has become.  I&#039;m sickened for my children.  Just sickened.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>After all, the Constitution is where Congress derives all of its authority.  <strong>It’s not exactly a lengthy document.</strong> </p></blockquote>
<p>Yes, and it served us so well for so long, yet our idiots in Congress now write single bills that are a hundred times longer than the entire Constitution so they can tuck all sorts of crap into them (homosexuals added to <em>hate crimes </em>in a defense bill?  ARGHH!).  There is something so fundamentally wrong with what our government has become.  I&#8217;m sickened for my children.  Just sickened.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stop The ACLU</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2870760</link>
		<dc:creator>Stop The ACLU</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Oct 2009 01:08:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2870760</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Obamacare is Unconstitutional...&lt;/strong&gt;

Specifically, the mandate portion requiring all Americans to have health insurance is unconstitutional.  The Federal Government does not have this authority, because it is not enumerated in the Constitution.  An amendment would have to be passed in ord...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Obamacare is Unconstitutional&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Specifically, the mandate portion requiring all Americans to have health insurance is unconstitutional.  The Federal Government does not have this authority, because it is not enumerated in the Constitution.  An amendment would have to be passed in ord&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Obama Family Photo By Annie Leibovitz Released &#187; Right Pundits</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2870029</link>
		<dc:creator>Obama Family Photo By Annie Leibovitz Released &#187; Right Pundits</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:22:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2870029</guid>
		<description>[...] Hot Air - Pelosi: Constitutionality of individual mandates not “serious” question [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Hot Air &#8211; Pelosi: Constitutionality of individual mandates not “serious” question [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: change is for suckers</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2869548</link>
		<dc:creator>change is for suckers</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:33:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2869548</guid>
		<description>&quot;Are you serious?&quot;  Questions like those are eerily similar to the rhetoric used in 1970&#039;s San Francisco.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Are you serious?&#8221;  Questions like those are eerily similar to the rhetoric used in 1970&#8242;s San Francisco.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: daesleeper</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2869485</link>
		<dc:creator>daesleeper</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 07:15:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2869485</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;bloviator on October 24, 2009 at 7:58 PM&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Make it so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>bloviator on October 24, 2009 at 7:58 PM</p></blockquote>
<p>Make it so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: J_Crater</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2869406</link>
		<dc:creator>J_Crater</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 03:36:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2869406</guid>
		<description>Read it and weep ...&lt;blockquote&gt;The &lt;strong&gt;public option&lt;/strong&gt; would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. &lt;strong&gt;It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider&lt;/strong&gt;, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy.&lt;/blockquote&gt;
The only real difference is that it would have the deep pockets and stable of lawyers of the federal government at it&#039;s disposal, so it could engage in &quot;dumping&quot; with no fear of economic repercussions.

It&#039;s pretty hard to go to court with the folks that make the laws.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Read it and weep &#8230;<br />
<blockquote>The <strong>public option</strong> would effectively be just another insurance plan offered on the open market. <strong>It would likely be administered by a private insurance provider</strong>, charging premiums and copayments like any other policy.</p></blockquote>
<p>The only real difference is that it would have the deep pockets and stable of lawyers of the federal government at it&#8217;s disposal, so it could engage in &#8220;dumping&#8221; with no fear of economic repercussions.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s pretty hard to go to court with the folks that make the laws.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: herself</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2869019</link>
		<dc:creator>herself</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 25 Oct 2009 00:10:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2869019</guid>
		<description>The Democratic party did not produce the Constitution therefore it is meaningless. I thought the meaninglessness of the Constitution has been established for decades now.

{+_+}</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Democratic party did not produce the Constitution therefore it is meaningless. I thought the meaninglessness of the Constitution has been established for decades now.</p>
<p>{+_+}</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: bloviator</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2869002</link>
		<dc:creator>bloviator</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2869002</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve said this before.... we lock the doors when congress and senate is in session and burn the building.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve said this before&#8230;. we lock the doors when congress and senate is in session and burn the building.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: hillbillyjim</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868991</link>
		<dc:creator>hillbillyjim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:46:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868991</guid>
		<description>PALOMINO.

Enough already.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PALOMINO.</p>
<p>Enough already.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nascardad45</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868965</link>
		<dc:creator>nascardad45</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 23:28:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868965</guid>
		<description>I have the RIGHT to refuse any medical treatment I don&#039;t want. That would mean I also have the RIGHT to refuse to buy medical insurance.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have the RIGHT to refuse any medical treatment I don&#8217;t want. That would mean I also have the RIGHT to refuse to buy medical insurance.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fed45</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868847</link>
		<dc:creator>Fed45</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:49:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868847</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I don’t buy it.
When you have a couple of providers in a state that have a lock on all the business there is little reason to cut premiums.
A smart insurance provider could make out well by offering a higher risk premium for overweight people etc and attract people from all states.
I believe this because I think the overweight=bad health is mostly a bogus correlation, so if the premium cost was higher but the outlay was comparable to outlays for “normal” weight people you come out ahead.
Being overweight doesn’t mean you have higher blood pressure or higher cholesterol than your skinny neighbor.

People who run, bike, rollerblade, skateboard, hike, ski, etc, are probably using more everyday type medical services than the person who putzes around the house.
I know this is true of my friends who almost obsess with exercise and their diet…strained muscles, shin splints, back aches, abrasions, hip problems, hand problems, etc. things that you wouldn’t even notice or even mention….but they’re having “it” checked out.

Itchee Dryback on October 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM&lt;/blockquote&gt;

You are providing anecdotal evidence.  Doesn&#039;t match with the actuarial tables insurance companies use to determine rates/risk. Like it or not, overweight, sedentary smokers  are viewed by insurance companies as a higher risk than the &quot;healthy/active&quot; ones they may have aches and pains every day because of their activities. 

The perceived risk of an individual who is fifty years old, overweight, and a smoker won’t decrease just because that individual can buy insurance anywhere in the country.

And if an insurance company can offer cheap premiums to entice low-risk people from all over the country, they’re that much less likely to continue offering any type of insurance to higher-risk individuals.

Then there is the volume-based bargaining aspect.  Insurance companies keep costs down by making agreements with doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers to get lower rates than any individual buyer could ever achieve. Insurers operating from one state may have a difficult time, on their own, bargaining in states where they have relatively small market presence. It is unlikely that an insurer could ever get a doctor or hospital in Massachusetts to agree to the same fee schedule that is acceptable in Idaho. Even Medicare, the largest single &quot;player&quot; in the healthcare market, hasn&#039;t figured out a way to pay the same reimbursement rate to all health care providers across the country.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I don’t buy it.<br />
When you have a couple of providers in a state that have a lock on all the business there is little reason to cut premiums.<br />
A smart insurance provider could make out well by offering a higher risk premium for overweight people etc and attract people from all states.<br />
I believe this because I think the overweight=bad health is mostly a bogus correlation, so if the premium cost was higher but the outlay was comparable to outlays for “normal” weight people you come out ahead.<br />
Being overweight doesn’t mean you have higher blood pressure or higher cholesterol than your skinny neighbor.</p>
<p>People who run, bike, rollerblade, skateboard, hike, ski, etc, are probably using more everyday type medical services than the person who putzes around the house.<br />
I know this is true of my friends who almost obsess with exercise and their diet…strained muscles, shin splints, back aches, abrasions, hip problems, hand problems, etc. things that you wouldn’t even notice or even mention….but they’re having “it” checked out.</p>
<p>Itchee Dryback on October 24, 2009 at 1:29 PM</p></blockquote>
<p>You are providing anecdotal evidence.  Doesn&#8217;t match with the actuarial tables insurance companies use to determine rates/risk. Like it or not, overweight, sedentary smokers  are viewed by insurance companies as a higher risk than the &#8220;healthy/active&#8221; ones they may have aches and pains every day because of their activities. </p>
<p>The perceived risk of an individual who is fifty years old, overweight, and a smoker won’t decrease just because that individual can buy insurance anywhere in the country.</p>
<p>And if an insurance company can offer cheap premiums to entice low-risk people from all over the country, they’re that much less likely to continue offering any type of insurance to higher-risk individuals.</p>
<p>Then there is the volume-based bargaining aspect.  Insurance companies keep costs down by making agreements with doctors, hospitals and other healthcare providers to get lower rates than any individual buyer could ever achieve. Insurers operating from one state may have a difficult time, on their own, bargaining in states where they have relatively small market presence. It is unlikely that an insurer could ever get a doctor or hospital in Massachusetts to agree to the same fee schedule that is acceptable in Idaho. Even Medicare, the largest single &#8220;player&#8221; in the healthcare market, hasn&#8217;t figured out a way to pay the same reimbursement rate to all health care providers across the country.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cybergeezer</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868790</link>
		<dc:creator>Cybergeezer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868790</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;This behavior by Congress and the President is treasonous.&lt;/strong&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>This behavior by Congress and the President is treasonous.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cybergeezer</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868784</link>
		<dc:creator>Cybergeezer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:08:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868784</guid>
		<description>Our national Constitutional Scholar in Chief should know the precedent, but he shall ignore it since he thinks the Constitution is an outdated document.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Our national Constitutional Scholar in Chief should know the precedent, but he shall ignore it since he thinks the Constitution is an outdated document.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cybergeezer</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868780</link>
		<dc:creator>Cybergeezer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:05:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868780</guid>
		<description>The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled; &lt;blockquote&gt;“If we were to accept the government’s (Pelosi&#039;s) arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”&lt;/blockquote&gt;
Insertions are mine; But, &lt;strong&gt;the Supreme Court has precedent on this attitude already. Of course, Pelosi is conveniently ignorant.&lt;/strong&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled;<br />
<blockquote>“If we were to accept the government’s (Pelosi&#8217;s) arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that Congress is without power to regulate.”</p></blockquote>
<p>Insertions are mine; But, <strong>the Supreme Court has precedent on this attitude already. Of course, Pelosi is conveniently ignorant.</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: evergreen</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868772</link>
		<dc:creator>evergreen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 21:01:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868772</guid>
		<description>Nan:  &quot;Something limits our complete power to run your lives?  Are you SERIOUS?&quot;  *snort snort, chuckle chuckle*

Real freaking hilarious, Nan.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nan:  &#8220;Something limits our complete power to run your lives?  Are you SERIOUS?&#8221;  *snort snort, chuckle chuckle*</p>
<p>Real freaking hilarious, Nan.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Moe Lane &#187; Is ABC offering strategic, deniable editorializing&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868754</link>
		<dc:creator>Moe Lane &#187; Is ABC offering strategic, deniable editorializing&#8230;</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:49:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868754</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8230;with their logo placement (via Hot Air)? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8230;with their logo placement (via Hot Air)? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is ABC offering strategic, deniable editorializing&#8230; - Moe_Lane&#8217;s blog - RedState</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868753</link>
		<dc:creator>Is ABC offering strategic, deniable editorializing&#8230; - Moe_Lane&#8217;s blog - RedState</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:46:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868753</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8230;with their logo placement (via Hot Air)? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8230;with their logo placement (via Hot Air)? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Is ABC offering strategic, deniable editorializing&#8230; - Moe_Lane&#8217;s blog - RedState</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868752</link>
		<dc:creator>Is ABC offering strategic, deniable editorializing&#8230; - Moe_Lane&#8217;s blog - RedState</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:46:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868752</guid>
		<description>[...] &#8230;with their logo placement (via Hot Air)? [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] &#8230;with their logo placement (via Hot Air)? [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nelsonknows</title>
		<link>http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/23/pelosi-constitutionality-of-individual-mandates-not-serious-question/comment-page-4/#comment-2868722</link>
		<dc:creator>nelsonknows</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Oct 2009 20:21:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://hotair.com/?p=70123#comment-2868722</guid>
		<description>Oh great, now idiots are trying to inject the &quot;Necessary and Proper Clause&quot; to mean that Congress can legislate anything it damned well wants.
The answer to this is a resounding NO!  Congress has the limited, granted powers to enact legislation ONLY on the subjects granted in Article 1, Section 8 or, as with the census, any subject SPECIFICALLY named in the Constitution or its amendments.
Even the &quot;General Welfare Clause&quot; is limited to the subjects in Article 1, Section 8.
Even the SCOTUS MUST go back to its original assignment, to ENFORCE the Constitution, not to &quot;interpret&quot; the Constitution which was interpreted by the men who wrote the Constitution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh great, now idiots are trying to inject the &#8220;Necessary and Proper Clause&#8221; to mean that Congress can legislate anything it damned well wants.<br />
The answer to this is a resounding NO!  Congress has the limited, granted powers to enact legislation ONLY on the subjects granted in Article 1, Section 8 or, as with the census, any subject SPECIFICALLY named in the Constitution or its amendments.<br />
Even the &#8220;General Welfare Clause&#8221; is limited to the subjects in Article 1, Section 8.<br />
Even the SCOTUS MUST go back to its original assignment, to ENFORCE the Constitution, not to &#8220;interpret&#8221; the Constitution which was interpreted by the men who wrote the Constitution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
