<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>U.S. Constitution .org</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.usconstitution.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.usconstitution.org</link>
	<description>Focusing on Freedom and the Distribution of Political Power: election law, congressional organization, public administration, legislative process, and judicial organization</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 05:28:39 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Will SCOTUS usher a return to the &#8216;Lochner era&#8217;?&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/general/will-scotus-usher-a-return-to-the-lochner-era/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/general/will-scotus-usher-a-return-to-the-lochner-era/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[affordable care act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[SCOTUS]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9673</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Help!  The federal government won&#8217;t be able to &#8216;take care&#8216; of us! From CBS: Striking down the individual mandate raises two concerns. The first concern is that it may signal a return to pre-New Deal conceptions of federal power, when the federal government lacked sufficient power to stimulate the national economy and combat economic depression. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/general/will-scotus-usher-a-return-to-the-lochner-era/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;General Services Administration: Let the Taxpayers Eat Cake&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/all/general-services-administration-let-the-taxpayers-eat-cake/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/all/general-services-administration-let-the-taxpayers-eat-cake/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:35:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Public Administration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[government waste]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9668</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tad DeHaven writes at the Cato blog: The head of the General Services Administration, which is the federal government’s procurement and property manager, has resigned in the wake of a report from the agency’s inspector general that uncovered extravagant spending at a GSA “training conference” in Las Vegas.  [Read more . . . ] Contrast [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/all/general-services-administration-let-the-taxpayers-eat-cake/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Why Isn’t Voter Suppression a Protest Cause?&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/why-isnt-voter-suppression-a-protest-cause/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/why-isnt-voter-suppression-a-protest-cause/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:26:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electoral Process]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9663</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From Alec MacGillis at The New Republic: This week brought another major report on all the efforts in state capitals, almost all Republican-led, to restrict voting rights via new limits on voter registration, early voting, proof of residency and voter identification, all in the name of countering the phantom menace of voter fraud. In a conference call [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/why-isnt-voter-suppression-a-protest-cause/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Like the South, NH needs federal OK on voting&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/like-the-south-nh-needs-federal-ok-on-voting/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/like-the-south-nh-needs-federal-ok-on-voting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:19:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electoral Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[New Hampshire]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[preclearance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Voting Rights Act]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9661</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[From the Union Leader of New Hampshire: New Hampshire is trying to get itself removed from provisions of a 1965 federal voting rights law that requires the state to seek “pre-clearance&#8221; from the U.S. Department of Justice whenever it changes any voting laws. Officials here say New Hampshire never violated the 1965 law, which largely [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/like-the-south-nh-needs-federal-ok-on-voting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Let&#8217;s Give the Fed Some Competition&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/monetary-provisions/lets-give-the-fed-some-competition/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/monetary-provisions/lets-give-the-fed-some-competition/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:13:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Monetary Provisions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why not?  John Stossel writes: When government monetary policy is too loose, you get hyperinflation, like in Germany in the 1920s. A more recent example is Zimbabwe, where prices rose so fast that the government printed bills with a face value of 100 trillion (Zimbabwean) dollars.  [Read more . . . ] [RCP]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/monetary-provisions/lets-give-the-fed-some-competition/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Handicapping the Veep Stakes&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/nominating-process/handicapping-the-veep-stakes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/nominating-process/handicapping-the-veep-stakes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 04:09:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nominating Process]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9656</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eugene Robinson writes at RealClearPolitics: Playing second fiddle to Mitt Romney won&#8217;t be easy, but somebody has to be his running mate. Let&#8217;s handicap the field [Read more . . . ] The real story here, of course, is that the presidential nominee (probably Romney, at this point) will single-handedly choose the VP nominee.  That&#8217;s how it [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/nominating-process/handicapping-the-veep-stakes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Redistricting spurs House cash dash&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/redistricting-spurs-house-cash-dash/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/redistricting-spurs-house-cash-dash/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 03:57:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Electoral Process]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9651</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Robin Bravender reports for Politico: Veteran House members going head to head with their colleagues are locked in a fundraising arms race. Thanks to redistricting, incumbent House members are duking it out in as many as 13 races across the country. Some of those members have been able to coast through recent elections without much [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/electoral-process/redistricting-spurs-house-cash-dash/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Federal judge hits back at Obama&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/judicial-system/federal-judge-hits-back-at-obama/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/judicial-system/federal-judge-hits-back-at-obama/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 03:52:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judicial System]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9648</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Jennifer Haberkorn reports for Politico: &#8220;Think the federal judiciary is taking kindly to President Barack Obama’s pre-emptive attack on the Supreme Court? Think again.&#8221;  [Read more . . .] And today Tim Mak reports on the blogosphere&#8217;s reaction to the court order: &#8220;Buoyed by an appeals court that rebuked President Barack Obama’s comment that the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/judicial-system/federal-judge-hits-back-at-obama/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8220;Twitter, Facebook now tools for Big Brother&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/civil-liberties/twitter-facebook-now-tools-for-big-brother/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/civil-liberties/twitter-facebook-now-tools-for-big-brother/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 03:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Civil Liberties]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9646</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[David Rauf reports for Politico. &#160;]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/civil-liberties/twitter-facebook-now-tools-for-big-brother/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UPDATE: &#8220;Senate Has an Un-Budget, Parliamentarian Rules&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.usconstitution.org/legislative-process/senate-has-an-un-budget-parliamentarian-rules/</link>
		<comments>http://www.usconstitution.org/legislative-process/senate-has-an-un-budget-parliamentarian-rules/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 03:45:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>U.S. Constitution .org</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislative Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[budget resolutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[continuing resolutions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deficit spending]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.usconstitution.org/?p=9644</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patrick Knudsen writes at the Heritage blog: Hats off to the Senate parliamentarian, who apparently has rebuffed the Democratic leadership’s latest excuse for failing to bring a budget to the floor—something the Senate hasn’t done for nearly three years. Since February, Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D–NV) and his lieutenants have claimed the Budget Control [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.usconstitution.org/legislative-process/senate-has-an-un-budget-parliamentarian-rules/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

