<?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: Unconstitutional on its Face</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/unconstitutional-on-its-face/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/unconstitutional-on-its-face/</link>
	<description>The Tenther Grapevine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 23:57:24 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: wnelson13</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/04/unconstitutional-on-its-face/#comment-2597</link>
		<dc:creator>wnelson13</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Apr 2010 15:18:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=4046#comment-2597</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The thing that gets me is, I think they know it is unconstitutional, they knew it would be challenged, and they risk they took was a calculated risk. They knew it would take a few years to get this before the high court and by that time they would have the infrastructure in place making it hard for the Jurists to go in the opposite direction. I think there is a nother aspect of this legislation that violates the equal protection clause, and it doesnt seem to be getting much chatter. The exemptions for the Amish and the Christian Scientists, how can you make a protected class that is exempt from this legislation? Am I incorrect in my thought that this law shall be applied EQUALLY? 
Then we have the tanning tax. This tax disproportiantely affects white women, can you imagine if they created a tax that disproportionately affected black women, or hispanic women? ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The thing that gets me is, I think they know it is unconstitutional, they knew it would be challenged, and they risk they took was a calculated risk. They knew it would take a few years to get this before the high court and by that time they would have the infrastructure in place making it hard for the Jurists to go in the opposite direction. I think there is a nother aspect of this legislation that violates the equal protection clause, and it doesnt seem to be getting much chatter. The exemptions for the Amish and the Christian Scientists, how can you make a protected class that is exempt from this legislation? Am I incorrect in my thought that this law shall be applied EQUALLY?<br />
Then we have the tanning tax. This tax disproportiantely affects white women, can you imagine if they created a tax that disproportionately affected black women, or hispanic women? </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
