<?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: The Real Affront to Democratic Theory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.demablogue.com/law/the-real-affront-to-democratic-theory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.demablogue.com/law/the-real-affront-to-democratic-theory/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Jan 2012 16:43:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Weak Courts, Strong Rights &#124; Demablogue</title>
		<link>http://www.demablogue.com/law/the-real-affront-to-democratic-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-2036</link>
		<dc:creator>Weak Courts, Strong Rights &#124; Demablogue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 May 2010 23:56:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demablogue.com/?p=873#comment-2036</guid>
		<description>[...] for stricter methods of constitutional interpretation on this blog quite often (see, e.g., here, here, here, and [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] for stricter methods of constitutional interpretation on this blog quite often (see, e.g., here, here, here, and [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rix</title>
		<link>http://www.demablogue.com/law/the-real-affront-to-democratic-theory/comment-page-1/#comment-1957</link>
		<dc:creator>Rix</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:03:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.demablogue.com/?p=873#comment-1957</guid>
		<description>While I am quite ambivalent on the matter of abortions, I fail to envision a legal twist required to derive abortion regulation from the Commerce Clause. The pivotal issue here is whether abortion is a murder of a human being or it is not; if the former is true, any regulation is obviously out of question, while in the latter case no regulation is required and woman&#039;s right to pursuit of happiness governs. As for whether abortion is indeed a murder, I&#039;ll second the President: this question is far above our pay grade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While I am quite ambivalent on the matter of abortions, I fail to envision a legal twist required to derive abortion regulation from the Commerce Clause. The pivotal issue here is whether abortion is a murder of a human being or it is not; if the former is true, any regulation is obviously out of question, while in the latter case no regulation is required and woman&#8217;s right to pursuit of happiness governs. As for whether abortion is indeed a murder, I&#8217;ll second the President: this question is far above our pay grade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

