<?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 for Tom Burrell</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.tomburrell.com/?feed=comments-rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.tomburrell.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:43:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Another Chapter of Fetch and Retrieve for the Fourteenth Amendment by admin</title>
		<link>http://www.tomburrell.com/?p=85&#038;cpage=1#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Aug 2010 00:43:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tomburrell.com/?p=85#comment-109</guid>
		<description>Granted, we view bans on interracial marriage as horrendous these days, but that doesn’t make the Court’s judicial activism invalidating those laws any less activist.  The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to outlaw laws banning interracial marriage.  It’s part of the &lt;a href=”http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1374077” rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;legislative history&lt;/a&gt;.  Still living in the world of Plessy...slight chance, but I&#039;d like to think if we didn&#039;t have the Court replacing the function of Article V, the people would have adopted amendments addressing some of the social issues of the twentieth century.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Granted, we view bans on interracial marriage as horrendous these days, but that doesn’t make the Court’s judicial activism invalidating those laws any less activist.  The Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to outlaw laws banning interracial marriage.  It’s part of the <a href=”http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1374077” rel="nofollow">legislative history</a>.  Still living in the world of Plessy&#8230;slight chance, but I&#8217;d like to think if we didn&#8217;t have the Court replacing the function of Article V, the people would have adopted amendments addressing some of the social issues of the twentieth century.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Another Chapter of Fetch and Retrieve for the Fourteenth Amendment by torqueflite</title>
		<link>http://www.tomburrell.com/?p=85&#038;cpage=1#comment-103</link>
		<dc:creator>torqueflite</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:46:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tomburrell.com/?p=85#comment-103</guid>
		<description>By this reasoning, then, Perez v. Sharp and Loving v. Virginia were simply &quot;judicial activism&quot; and we should still be living in the world of Plessy v. Ferguson.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>By this reasoning, then, Perez v. Sharp and Loving v. Virginia were simply &#8220;judicial activism&#8221; and we should still be living in the world of Plessy v. Ferguson.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Another Chapter of Fetch and Retrieve for the Fourteenth Amendment by The Treacherous 14th Amendment&#8230; &#124; america1first.com</title>
		<link>http://www.tomburrell.com/?p=85&#038;cpage=1#comment-88</link>
		<dc:creator>The Treacherous 14th Amendment&#8230; &#124; america1first.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Aug 2010 23:05:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.tomburrell.com/?p=85#comment-88</guid>
		<description>[...] Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Another Chapter of Fetch and Retrieve for &#8230; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Perry v. Schwarzenegger: Another Chapter of Fetch and Retrieve for &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
