<?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: Constitution Check: Is Social Security unconstitutional?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/</link>
	<description>Smart Conversation about the Constitution</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 20:04:51 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Constitution Check: Is Social Security unconstitutional &#8230; &#124; electronicsnews.co.tv</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-2735</link>
		<dc:creator>Constitution Check: Is Social Security unconstitutional &#8230; &#124; electronicsnews.co.tv</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2011 02:32:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-2735</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] That 7-2 decision&#8230;   Read the article: Constitution Check: Is Social Security unconstitutional &#8230; [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] That 7-2 decision&#8230;   Read the article: Constitution Check: Is Social Security unconstitutional &#8230; [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Silence DoOkay</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-5641</link>
		<dc:creator>Silence DoOkay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-5641</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rick Perry has had an &#039;augh-shucks&#039; Texan propensity for figurative speech --that was particularly virulent during his service as Governor of Texas before he had any idea he had any chance at a run for the Presidency.  Some folks made a big deal about his &#039;attention-grabbing&#039; comments regarding secession--which I regard as simple puffing and certainly not as anything anywhere close to serious.

I also see his old comments about Social Security as remarkable but so much so as they likewise seem obvious as attention-getting political ploys (figurative remarks) of the time and place.  Everyone is having a great time perhaps trying to make something of this while he is under real assault by the other candidates for being too moderate in practice--for his practical record of achievements as Governor (which hi9s opponents all point out are rather compromised as if that is something bad).

Consequently, I find articles such as this--of which there are aplenty--that play along this line of insisting that Perry be held accountable to old typical puffs of figurative speech more than a bit disturbing.  Unwittingly or not, these lines of attack lend support to a particular opponent of Perry I find more disturbing by his practice who actually is trying to employ his experience turning around companies to qualify himself for turning around the Nation.  Can sound innocent enough, but the methods venture capitalists typically utilize to turn around a company are a lot more frightening to me than anything Perry has said so far in his lifetime.  (For one, venture capitalists don&#039;t really turn around the company--they buy the assets of the company--not the company itself--including the rights to the name.  In this way, they take control and are not subject to contracts the former company entered into.  Social security is a contract citizens have entered into--constitutional questions of social security are no longer serious questions except for a few nitwits lingering on the right (not a question that strikes me as worthy of other attention....  

Rick Perry has been painted an extremist for his politicking for the attention of the Tea Party.  Rick Perry, it now seems obvious, was a bit naive about what a grass roots movement tends to become in his attempt to take on a leadership role in the Tea Party as he finds himself booed for criticizing Romney for not having a heart as Romney latched onto hatred and fears of brown skin to attack Perry&#039;s immigrant policies.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick Perry has had an &#8216;augh-shucks&#8217; Texan propensity for figurative speech &#8211;that was particularly virulent during his service as Governor of Texas before he had any idea he had any chance at a run for the Presidency.  Some folks made a big deal about his &#8216;attention-grabbing&#8217; comments regarding secession&#8211;which I regard as simple puffing and certainly not as anything anywhere close to serious.</p>
<p>I also see his old comments about Social Security as remarkable but so much so as they likewise seem obvious as attention-getting political ploys (figurative remarks) of the time and place.  Everyone is having a great time perhaps trying to make something of this while he is under real assault by the other candidates for being too moderate in practice&#8211;for his practical record of achievements as Governor (which hi9s opponents all point out are rather compromised as if that is something bad).</p>
<p>Consequently, I find articles such as this&#8211;of which there are aplenty&#8211;that play along this line of insisting that Perry be held accountable to old typical puffs of figurative speech more than a bit disturbing.  Unwittingly or not, these lines of attack lend support to a particular opponent of Perry I find more disturbing by his practice who actually is trying to employ his experience turning around companies to qualify himself for turning around the Nation.  Can sound innocent enough, but the methods venture capitalists typically utilize to turn around a company are a lot more frightening to me than anything Perry has said so far in his lifetime.  (For one, venture capitalists don&#8217;t really turn around the company&#8211;they buy the assets of the company&#8211;not the company itself&#8211;including the rights to the name.  In this way, they take control and are not subject to contracts the former company entered into.  Social security is a contract citizens have entered into&#8211;constitutional questions of social security are no longer serious questions except for a few nitwits lingering on the right (not a question that strikes me as worthy of other attention&#8230;.  </p>
<p>Rick Perry has been painted an extremist for his politicking for the attention of the Tea Party.  Rick Perry, it now seems obvious, was a bit naive about what a grass roots movement tends to become in his attempt to take on a leadership role in the Tea Party as he finds himself booed for criticizing Romney for not having a heart as Romney latched onto hatred and fears of brown skin to attack Perry&#8217;s immigrant policies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Silence DoOkay</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-19732</link>
		<dc:creator>Silence DoOkay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-19732</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rick Perry has had an &#039;augh-shucks&#039; Texan propensity for figurative speech --that was particularly virulent during his service as Governor of Texas before he had any idea he had any chance at a run for the Presidency.  Some folks made a big deal about his &#039;attention-grabbing&#039; comments regarding secession--which I regard as simple puffing and certainly not as anything anywhere close to serious.

I also see his old comments about Social Security as remarkable but so much so as they likewise seem obvious as attention-getting political ploys (figurative remarks) of the time and place.  Everyone is having a great time perhaps trying to make something of this while he is under real assault by the other candidates for being too moderate in practice--for his practical record of achievements as Governor (which hi9s opponents all point out are rather compromised as if that is something bad).

Consequently, I find articles such as this--of which there are aplenty--that play along this line of insisting that Perry be held accountable to old typical puffs of figurative speech more than a bit disturbing.  Unwittingly or not, these lines of attack lend support to a particular opponent of Perry I find more disturbing by his practice who actually is trying to employ his experience turning around companies to qualify himself for turning around the Nation.  Can sound innocent enough, but the methods venture capitalists typically utilize to turn around a company are a lot more frightening to me than anything Perry has said so far in his lifetime.  (For one, venture capitalists don&#039;t really turn around the company--they buy the assets of the company--not the company itself--including the rights to the name.  In this way, they take control and are not subject to contracts the former company entered into.  Social security is a contract citizens have entered into--constitutional questions of social security are no longer serious questions except for a few nitwits lingering on the right (not a question that strikes me as worthy of other attention....  

Rick Perry has been painted an extremist for his politicking for the attention of the Tea Party.  Rick Perry, it now seems obvious, was a bit naive about what a grass roots movement tends to become in his attempt to take on a leadership role in the Tea Party as he finds himself booed for criticizing Romney for not having a heart as Romney latched onto hatred and fears of brown skin to attack Perry&#039;s immigrant policies.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick Perry has had an &#8216;augh-shucks&#8217; Texan propensity for figurative speech &#8211;that was particularly virulent during his service as Governor of Texas before he had any idea he had any chance at a run for the Presidency.  Some folks made a big deal about his &#8216;attention-grabbing&#8217; comments regarding secession&#8211;which I regard as simple puffing and certainly not as anything anywhere close to serious.</p>
<p>I also see his old comments about Social Security as remarkable but so much so as they likewise seem obvious as attention-getting political ploys (figurative remarks) of the time and place.  Everyone is having a great time perhaps trying to make something of this while he is under real assault by the other candidates for being too moderate in practice&#8211;for his practical record of achievements as Governor (which hi9s opponents all point out are rather compromised as if that is something bad).</p>
<p>Consequently, I find articles such as this&#8211;of which there are aplenty&#8211;that play along this line of insisting that Perry be held accountable to old typical puffs of figurative speech more than a bit disturbing.  Unwittingly or not, these lines of attack lend support to a particular opponent of Perry I find more disturbing by his practice who actually is trying to employ his experience turning around companies to qualify himself for turning around the Nation.  Can sound innocent enough, but the methods venture capitalists typically utilize to turn around a company are a lot more frightening to me than anything Perry has said so far in his lifetime.  (For one, venture capitalists don&#8217;t really turn around the company&#8211;they buy the assets of the company&#8211;not the company itself&#8211;including the rights to the name.  In this way, they take control and are not subject to contracts the former company entered into.  Social security is a contract citizens have entered into&#8211;constitutional questions of social security are no longer serious questions except for a few nitwits lingering on the right (not a question that strikes me as worthy of other attention&#8230;.  </p>
<p>Rick Perry has been painted an extremist for his politicking for the attention of the Tea Party.  Rick Perry, it now seems obvious, was a bit naive about what a grass roots movement tends to become in his attempt to take on a leadership role in the Tea Party as he finds himself booed for criticizing Romney for not having a heart as Romney latched onto hatred and fears of brown skin to attack Perry&#8217;s immigrant policies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Silence DoOkay</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-17106</link>
		<dc:creator>Silence DoOkay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 17:41:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-17106</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Rick Perry has had an &#039;augh-shucks&#039; Texan propensity for figurative speech --that was particularly virulent during his service as Governor of Texas before he had any idea he had any chance at a run for the Presidency.  Some folks made a big deal about his &#039;attention-grabbing&#039; comments regarding secession--which I regard as simple puffing and certainly not as anything anywhere close to serious.

I also see his old comments about Social Security as remarkable but so much so as they likewise seem obvious as attention-getting political ploys (figurative remarks) of the time and place.  Everyone is having a great time perhaps trying to make something of this while he is under real assault by the other candidates for being too moderate in practice--for his practical record of achievements as Governor (which hi9s opponents all point out are rather compromised as if that is something bad).

Consequently, I find articles such as this--of which there are aplenty--that play along this line of insisting that Perry be held accountable to old typical puffs of figurative speech more than a bit disturbing.  Unwittingly or not, these lines of attack lend support to a particular opponent of Perry I find more disturbing by his practice who actually is trying to employ his experience turning around companies to qualify himself for turning around the Nation.  Can sound innocent enough, but the methods venture capitalists typically utilize to turn around a company are a lot more frightening to me than anything Perry has said so far in his lifetime.  (For one, venture capitalists don&#039;t really turn around the company--they buy the assets of the company--not the company itself--including the rights to the name.  In this way, they take control and are not subject to contracts the former company entered into.  Social security is a contract citizens have entered into--constitutional questions of social security are no longer serious questions except for a few nitwits lingering on the right (not a question that strikes me as worthy of other attention....  

Rick Perry has been painted an extremist for his politicking for the attention of the Tea Party.  Rick Perry, it now seems obvious, was a bit naive about what a grass roots movement tends to become in his attempt to take on a leadership role in the Tea Party as he finds himself booed for criticizing Romney for not having a heart as Romney latched onto hatred and fears of brown skin to attack Perry&#039;s immigrant policies.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Rick Perry has had an &#8216;augh-shucks&#8217; Texan propensity for figurative speech &#8211;that was particularly virulent during his service as Governor of Texas before he had any idea he had any chance at a run for the Presidency.  Some folks made a big deal about his &#8216;attention-grabbing&#8217; comments regarding secession&#8211;which I regard as simple puffing and certainly not as anything anywhere close to serious.</p>
<p>I also see his old comments about Social Security as remarkable but so much so as they likewise seem obvious as attention-getting political ploys (figurative remarks) of the time and place.  Everyone is having a great time perhaps trying to make something of this while he is under real assault by the other candidates for being too moderate in practice&#8211;for his practical record of achievements as Governor (which hi9s opponents all point out are rather compromised as if that is something bad).</p>
<p>Consequently, I find articles such as this&#8211;of which there are aplenty&#8211;that play along this line of insisting that Perry be held accountable to old typical puffs of figurative speech more than a bit disturbing.  Unwittingly or not, these lines of attack lend support to a particular opponent of Perry I find more disturbing by his practice who actually is trying to employ his experience turning around companies to qualify himself for turning around the Nation.  Can sound innocent enough, but the methods venture capitalists typically utilize to turn around a company are a lot more frightening to me than anything Perry has said so far in his lifetime.  (For one, venture capitalists don&#8217;t really turn around the company&#8211;they buy the assets of the company&#8211;not the company itself&#8211;including the rights to the name.  In this way, they take control and are not subject to contracts the former company entered into.  Social security is a contract citizens have entered into&#8211;constitutional questions of social security are no longer serious questions except for a few nitwits lingering on the right (not a question that strikes me as worthy of other attention&#8230;.  </p>
<p>Rick Perry has been painted an extremist for his politicking for the attention of the Tea Party.  Rick Perry, it now seems obvious, was a bit naive about what a grass roots movement tends to become in his attempt to take on a leadership role in the Tea Party as he finds himself booed for criticizing Romney for not having a heart as Romney latched onto hatred and fears of brown skin to attack Perry&#8217;s immigrant policies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Frank</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-17105</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-17105</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lyle Denniston responds: Hard-and-fast proof is lacking, but there seems little doubt that President Roosevelt&#039;s February 1937 announcement of his &quot;packing&quot; plan was on the Justices&#039; minds when, in the following May, they heard the Social Security case.  In the crisis atmosphere of the times, it took the Court only 19 days to uphold the Social Security Act.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lyle Denniston responds: Hard-and-fast proof is lacking, but there seems little doubt that President Roosevelt&#8217;s February 1937 announcement of his &#8220;packing&#8221; plan was on the Justices&#8217; minds when, in the following May, they heard the Social Security case.  In the crisis atmosphere of the times, it took the Court only 19 days to uphold the Social Security Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Frank</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-19731</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Frank</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-19731</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lyle Denniston responds: Hard-and-fast proof is lacking, but there seems little doubt that President Roosevelt&#039;s February 1937 announcement of his &quot;packing&quot; plan was on the Justices&#039; minds when, in the following May, they heard the Social Security case.  In the crisis atmosphere of the times, it took the Court only 19 days to uphold the Social Security Act.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lyle Denniston responds: Hard-and-fast proof is lacking, but there seems little doubt that President Roosevelt&#8217;s February 1937 announcement of his &#8220;packing&#8221; plan was on the Justices&#8217; minds when, in the following May, they heard the Social Security case.  In the crisis atmosphere of the times, it took the Court only 19 days to uphold the Social Security Act.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Geleff</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-5640</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Geleff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-5640</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did court stacking have anything to do with this decision?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did court stacking have anything to do with this decision?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Geleff</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-17104</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Geleff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-17104</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did court stacking have anything to do with this decision?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did court stacking have anything to do with this decision?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jerry Geleff</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-19730</link>
		<dc:creator>Jerry Geleff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 13:08:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-19730</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Did court stacking have anything to do with this decision?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Did court stacking have anything to do with this decision?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: National Constitution Center</title>
		<link>http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2011/09/constitution-check-is-social-security-unconstitutional/#comment-5639</link>
		<dc:creator>National Constitution Center</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Sep 2011 12:47:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog-dev.constitutioncenter.org/?p=8070#comment-5639</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Social Security: does it violate the Tenth Amendment? Lyle Denniston explores the constitutionality of Social Security pensions on Constitution Daily today.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Social Security: does it violate the Tenth Amendment? Lyle Denniston explores the constitutionality of Social Security pensions on Constitution Daily today.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
