<?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 Consent of the Governed</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/</link>
	<description>Conservative and Libertarian Intellectual Philosophy and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:00:53 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: From Inwood</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82425</link>
		<dc:creator>From Inwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 14:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82425</guid>
		<description>LAM

The perpetually aggrieved &amp; outraged Left is still claiming that SCOTUS deemed that Bush 43 was President.

Depends on whose ox is deemed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LAM</p>
<p>The perpetually aggrieved &amp; outraged Left is still claiming that SCOTUS deemed that Bush 43 was President.</p>
<p>Depends on whose ox is deemed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Last Angry Man</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82422</link>
		<dc:creator>Last Angry Man</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 13:44:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82422</guid>
		<description>Perhaps we can &quot;deem&quot; GWB as having won a third term, following having deemed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.  Then he can deem the Democrat Party as being within the precincts of the RICO act, and ban them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps we can &#8220;deem&#8221; GWB as having won a third term, following having deemed a repeal of the 22nd Amendment.  Then he can deem the Democrat Party as being within the precincts of the RICO act, and ban them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From Inwood</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82417</link>
		<dc:creator>From Inwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Mar 2010 02:12:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82417</guid>
		<description>This just in: 

If the actual Census returns don&#039;t show the number of residents in the inner cities that Liberals had hoped for, the Bureau will &quot;deem&quot; the appropriate numbers in the final report.

BTW, I&#039;m gonna &quot;deem&quot; that my taxes for 2009 have been paid.

Also, no need for card check legislation. If a union appears at a workplace it will be &quot;deemed&quot; to have been accepted.

And next month the unemployment rate will be deemed to be &lt;5%</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This just in: </p>
<p>If the actual Census returns don&#8217;t show the number of residents in the inner cities that Liberals had hoped for, the Bureau will &#8220;deem&#8221; the appropriate numbers in the final report.</p>
<p>BTW, I&#8217;m gonna &#8220;deem&#8221; that my taxes for 2009 have been paid.</p>
<p>Also, no need for card check legislation. If a union appears at a workplace it will be &#8220;deemed&#8221; to have been accepted.</p>
<p>And next month the unemployment rate will be deemed to be &lt;5%</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sedonaman</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82394</link>
		<dc:creator>sedonaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 20:30:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82394</guid>
		<description>LAM:
&lt;blockquote&gt;...one might wonder when it will suddenly become the Administration&#039;s crusade to eliminate the 10th Amendment. &lt;/blockquote&gt;

They can always rely on the Supreme Court to come through.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>LAM:</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8230;one might wonder when it will suddenly become the Administration&#8217;s crusade to eliminate the 10th Amendment. </p></blockquote>
<p>They can always rely on the Supreme Court to come through.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Last Angry Man</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82392</link>
		<dc:creator>Last Angry Man</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 19:02:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82392</guid>
		<description>And it begins: the VA General Assembly has voted to ban mandatory health insurance coverage.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031002775.html

Gee, Barry, that 10th Amendment is a real bitch, isn&#039;t it?

Come to think of it, one might wonder when it will suddenly become the Administration&#039;s crusade to eliminate the 10th Amendment.  I&#039;d expect it, all things considered.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And it begins: the VA General Assembly has voted to ban mandatory health insurance coverage.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031002775.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/10/AR2010031002775.html</a></p>
<p>Gee, Barry, that 10th Amendment is a real bitch, isn&#8217;t it?</p>
<p>Come to think of it, one might wonder when it will suddenly become the Administration&#8217;s crusade to eliminate the 10th Amendment.  I&#8217;d expect it, all things considered.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From Inwood</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82382</link>
		<dc:creator>From Inwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 15:41:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82382</guid>
		<description>Alas, how simplistic were those of us who thought from our grade school civics class that, under the Constitution’s “Presentment Clause” (Art I Sec 7), after some (much) back &amp; forth, the House &amp; Senate got together &amp; submitted one bill, a real bill, to the President to sign, and (unless he “vetoed” it), upon his signature, the bill became a Law (although it could always be later amended through the same process).

Remember &lt;i&gt;Schoolhouse Rock&lt;/i&gt;, that civic-minded Saturday morning cartoon short from the 1970s? 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

It’s time to update it for the Obama Era, see Schoolhouse Barack:

http://biggovernment.com/jherricane/2010/03/14/schoolhouse-barack/

On a more high-minded note, see 

&lt;i&gt;&lt;b&gt;The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution&lt;/b&gt; 

No bill can become law unless the exact same text is approved by a majority of both houses of Congress.&lt;/i&gt;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

Where are the Libs who cried “They’re shredding my Constitution” every time a GOP Administration &amp; Congress got a law passed?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Alas, how simplistic were those of us who thought from our grade school civics class that, under the Constitution’s “Presentment Clause” (Art I Sec 7), after some (much) back &amp; forth, the House &amp; Senate got together &amp; submitted one bill, a real bill, to the President to sign, and (unless he “vetoed” it), upon his signature, the bill became a Law (although it could always be later amended through the same process).</p>
<p>Remember <i>Schoolhouse Rock</i>, that civic-minded Saturday morning cartoon short from the 1970s? </p>
<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ</a></p>
<p>It’s time to update it for the Obama Era, see Schoolhouse Barack:</p>
<p><a href="http://biggovernment.com/jherricane/2010/03/14/schoolhouse-barack/" rel="nofollow">http://biggovernment.com/jherricane/2010/03/14/schoolhouse-barack/</a></p>
<p>On a more high-minded note, see </p>
<p><i><b>The House Health-Care Vote and the Constitution</b> </p>
<p>No bill can become law unless the exact same text is approved by a majority of both houses of Congress.</i></p>
<p><a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion" rel="nofollow">http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion</a></p>
<p>Where are the Libs who cried “They’re shredding my Constitution” every time a GOP Administration &amp; Congress got a law passed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From Inwood</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82374</link>
		<dc:creator>From Inwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82374</guid>
		<description>sedonaman

See &lt;i&gt;The Great Reneger&lt;/i&gt;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKmc9aBELM</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>sedonaman</p>
<p>See <i>The Great Reneger</i><br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKmc9aBELM" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdKmc9aBELM</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From Inwood</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82373</link>
		<dc:creator>From Inwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:29:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82373</guid>
		<description>Bill

On the other hand &lt;i&gt;Reason&lt;/i&gt; doesn&#039;t think it&#039;s a foregone conclusion that the Bill will pass

http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/12/for-nancy-pelosi-there-is-no-s</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill</p>
<p>On the other hand <i>Reason</i> doesn&#8217;t think it&#8217;s a foregone conclusion that the Bill will pass</p>
<p><a href="http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/12/for-nancy-pelosi-there-is-no-s" rel="nofollow">http://reason.com/blog/2010/03/12/for-nancy-pelosi-there-is-no-s</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: From Inwood</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82372</link>
		<dc:creator>From Inwood</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:03:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82372</guid>
		<description>Bill

I said on 3/9, @12:45 PM  &amp; 8:17 PM. that I would guess that Stupak would fold at some point.

I shouldve made that &quot;and/or his merry band&quot;

Be sure that the WH is going over their 1040s now &amp; are waiting for some intern to come forward with some story, real or imagined, a la Massa, about unbecoming glances &amp; advances on the part of these holdouts.

As for the RC church, I also said, on 3/9 @ 8:17, that RC Clerics &amp; deep-thinking RC Intellectuals, many of whom have been salivating over “free” healthcare for the poor for eons, are also looking for a fig leaf to support Obamacare while claiming their inalterable opposition to abortion as they continue to ask the faithful for more money to keep opposing abortion, &amp; that some may have found that fig leaf. 

The Bishop&#039;s one pager handed out today also asked that affordable healthcare insurance be made available for “immigrants”. Wasn’t aware that it wasn’t. Gee, could they mean illegal immigrants?

sedonaman

The One doesn’t need to veto anything now. In fact that would only confuse things. Everything will be fixed later. To the satisfaction of all compassionate people who have been fighting for free healthcare for all, even starving artists &amp; poets, since Truman.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Bill</p>
<p>I said on 3/9, @12:45 PM  &amp; 8:17 PM. that I would guess that Stupak would fold at some point.</p>
<p>I shouldve made that &#8220;and/or his merry band&#8221;</p>
<p>Be sure that the WH is going over their 1040s now &amp; are waiting for some intern to come forward with some story, real or imagined, a la Massa, about unbecoming glances &amp; advances on the part of these holdouts.</p>
<p>As for the RC church, I also said, on 3/9 @ 8:17, that RC Clerics &amp; deep-thinking RC Intellectuals, many of whom have been salivating over “free” healthcare for the poor for eons, are also looking for a fig leaf to support Obamacare while claiming their inalterable opposition to abortion as they continue to ask the faithful for more money to keep opposing abortion, &amp; that some may have found that fig leaf. </p>
<p>The Bishop&#8217;s one pager handed out today also asked that affordable healthcare insurance be made available for “immigrants”. Wasn’t aware that it wasn’t. Gee, could they mean illegal immigrants?</p>
<p>sedonaman</p>
<p>The One doesn’t need to veto anything now. In fact that would only confuse things. Everything will be fixed later. To the satisfaction of all compassionate people who have been fighting for free healthcare for all, even starving artists &amp; poets, since Truman.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sedonaman</title>
		<link>http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2010/03/08/the-consent-of-the-governed/comment-page-2/#comment-82371</link>
		<dc:creator>sedonaman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:54:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.intellectualconservative.com/?p=7548#comment-82371</guid>
		<description>Inwood:

Does that mean we can be sure the Øne will keep his promise by vetoing the bill?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Inwood:</p>
<p>Does that mean we can be sure the Øne will keep his promise by vetoing the bill?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

