<?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/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
xmlns:rawvoice="http://www.rawvoice.com/rawvoiceRssModule/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: States Can&#8217;t Nullify, Because I Said So!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/</link>
	<description>The Tenther Grapevine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 00:37:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Greg Butko</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/#comment-2012</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg Butko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3047#comment-2012</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obviously a state can nullify a federal law if that law violates the Constitution.  Otherwise, of what use is the Constitution?  If the federal government can ignore its restrictions, and has the final say as to whether or not a law is Constitutional, where are the checks and balances? 
 
Just because the states have gone along for so many years with meekly complying with federal laws based on spurious &quot;interpretations&quot; does not change the law.  If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if all public servants are sworn to uphold it, that should end the discussion.  The idea that the Constitution needs to be &quot;interpreted&quot; is nonsense.  The Constitution is written in plain English.  What these advocates of &quot;interpretation&quot; really mean is that the Constitution needs to be understood in a manner that gives them unlimited power and authority.  This is in direct opposition to the Founders intentions. 
 
For example, the reason federal power was strictly limited is because there is almost no remedy to oppression at that level.  If agents of the federal government violate the rights on American citizens, who is to hold them accountable?   
 
We have witnessed decades of waging wars without declarations, enriching private interests at the expense of the general public, the destruction of our civil rights, supposedly to fight terrorism that our own politicians brought on us.  And where is the remedy? 
 
The remedy is to take back the powers that the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.  And that is exactly what the Tenth Amendment is all about.  Certainly there are people who don&#039;t like the idea of losing power, but we either follow the law, or we continue our slide into tyranny.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obviously a state can nullify a federal law if that law violates the Constitution.  Otherwise, of what use is the Constitution?  If the federal government can ignore its restrictions, and has the final say as to whether or not a law is Constitutional, where are the checks and balances? </p>
<p>Just because the states have gone along for so many years with meekly complying with federal laws based on spurious &quot;interpretations&quot; does not change the law.  If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if all public servants are sworn to uphold it, that should end the discussion.  The idea that the Constitution needs to be &quot;interpreted&quot; is nonsense.  The Constitution is written in plain English.  What these advocates of &quot;interpretation&quot; really mean is that the Constitution needs to be understood in a manner that gives them unlimited power and authority.  This is in direct opposition to the Founders intentions. </p>
<p>For example, the reason federal power was strictly limited is because there is almost no remedy to oppression at that level.  If agents of the federal government violate the rights on American citizens, who is to hold them accountable?   </p>
<p>We have witnessed decades of waging wars without declarations, enriching private interests at the expense of the general public, the destruction of our civil rights, supposedly to fight terrorism that our own politicians brought on us.  And where is the remedy? </p>
<p>The remedy is to take back the powers that the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.  And that is exactly what the Tenth Amendment is all about.  Certainly there are people who don&#039;t like the idea of losing power, but we either follow the law, or we continue our slide into tyranny.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Greg Butko</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/#comment-2013</link>
		<dc:creator>Greg Butko</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 01:17:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3047#comment-2013</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obviously a state can nullify a federal law if that law violates the Constitution.  Otherwise, of what use is the Constitution?  If the federal government can ignore its restrictions, and has the final say as to whether or not a law is Constitutional, where are the checks and balances? 
 
Just because the states have gone along for so many years with meekly complying with federal laws based on spurious &quot;interpretations&quot; does not change the law.  If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if all public servants are sworn to uphold it, that should end the discussion.  The idea that the Constitution needs to be &quot;interpreted&quot; is nonsense.  The Constitution is written in plain English.  What these advocates of &quot;interpretation&quot; really mean is that the Constitution needs to be understood in a manner that gives them unlimited power and authority.  This is in direct opposition to the Founders intentions. 
 
For example, the reason federal power was strictly limited is because there is almost no remedy to oppression at that level.  If agents of the federal government violate the rights on American citizens, who is to hold them accountable?   
 
We have witnessed decades of waging wars without declarations, enriching private interests at the expense of the general public, the destruction of our civil rights, supposedly to fight terrorism that our own politicians brought on us.  And where is the remedy? 
 
The remedy is to take back the powers that the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.  And that is exactly what the Tenth Amendment is all about.  Certainly there are people who don&#039;t like the idea of losing power, but we either follow the law, or we continue our slide into tyranny.  ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Obviously a state can nullify a federal law if that law violates the Constitution.  Otherwise, of what use is the Constitution?  If the federal government can ignore its restrictions, and has the final say as to whether or not a law is Constitutional, where are the checks and balances? </p>
<p>Just because the states have gone along for so many years with meekly complying with federal laws based on spurious &quot;interpretations&quot; does not change the law.  If the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and if all public servants are sworn to uphold it, that should end the discussion.  The idea that the Constitution needs to be &quot;interpreted&quot; is nonsense.  The Constitution is written in plain English.  What these advocates of &quot;interpretation&quot; really mean is that the Constitution needs to be understood in a manner that gives them unlimited power and authority.  This is in direct opposition to the Founders intentions. </p>
<p>For example, the reason federal power was strictly limited is because there is almost no remedy to oppression at that level.  If agents of the federal government violate the rights on American citizens, who is to hold them accountable?   </p>
<p>We have witnessed decades of waging wars without declarations, enriching private interests at the expense of the general public, the destruction of our civil rights, supposedly to fight terrorism that our own politicians brought on us.  And where is the remedy? </p>
<p>The remedy is to take back the powers that the Constitution reserves to the states and the people.  And that is exactly what the Tenth Amendment is all about.  Certainly there are people who don&#039;t like the idea of losing power, but we either follow the law, or we continue our slide into tyranny.  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tweets that mention States Can’t Nullify, Because I Said So! &#124; Tenth Amendment Center Blog -- Topsy.com</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/#comment-2011</link>
		<dc:creator>Tweets that mention States Can’t Nullify, Because I Said So! &#124; Tenth Amendment Center Blog -- Topsy.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:14:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3047#comment-2011</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, A Distant Vision, Bobber, Best Sellers, Rick &amp; Dee Foster and others. Rick &amp; Dee Foster said: RT @TenthAmendment: #10th: States Can&#039;t Nullify, Because I Said So! http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-bec ... [...] ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendmentCenter, A Distant Vision, Bobber, Best Sellers, Rick &amp; Dee Foster and others. Rick &amp; Dee Foster said: RT @TenthAmendment: #10th: States Can&#039;t Nullify, Because I Said So! <a href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-bec" rel="nofollow">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-bec</a> &#8230; [...] </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/#comment-2010</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Feb 2010 01:07:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=3047#comment-2010</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: #10th: States Can&#039;t Nullify, Because I Said So! http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by TenthAmendment: #10th: States Can&#8217;t Nullify, Because I Said So! <a href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/states-cant-nullify-because-i-said-so/</a>&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
