<?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: President Obama the Nullifier?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/president-obama-the-nullifier/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/president-obama-the-nullifier/</link>
	<description>The Tenther Grapevine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 18 May 2013 05:59:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Philosopherking</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/president-obama-the-nullifier/#comment-4157</link>
		<dc:creator>Philosopherking</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Feb 2011 00:08:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6812#comment-4157</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[That is exactly right.  The other two branches (or the members of state governments) are bound to adhere to anything the judicial branch says.   The judicial branch only has power to try cases before it and not to determine how the other branches of government operate.   ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That is exactly right.  The other two branches (or the members of state governments) are bound to adhere to anything the judicial branch says.   The judicial branch only has power to try cases before it and not to determine how the other branches of government operate.   </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DerekSheriff</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/president-obama-the-nullifier/#comment-4156</link>
		<dc:creator>DerekSheriff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:50:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6812#comment-4156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[William J. Watkins Jr. explains departmentalism here: 
 
 &lt;a href=&quot;http://spectator.org/archives/2004/11/30/judicial-supremacy-exposed&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://spectator.org/archives/2004/11/30/judicial...&lt;/a&gt; 
 
He wrote: 
 
&quot;Departmentalist theory is perhaps best examined in the context of President Jefferson&#039;s approach to the Sedition Act. Upon entering office, Jefferson ordered the cessation of all federal sedition prosecutions and he pardoned those who had been convicted. In 1804, Jefferson received a letter from Abigail Adams criticizing his handling of the Sedition Act controversy. Mrs. Adams argued that because the judges had upheld the Sedition Act, President Jefferson had overstepped his constitutional bounds when terminating prosecutions and pardoning offenders. 
 
In a polite response, Jefferson reminded Mrs. Adams that &quot;nothing in the constitution has given [the judges] the right to decide for the executive, more than the Executive to decide for them.&quot; Both branches, continued Jefferson, &quot;are equally independent in the sphere assigned to them.&quot; Jefferson recognized that the judges, &quot;believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution.&quot; However, this did not bind him when performing his duties as chief executive. Because he believed the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, he &quot;was bound to remit the execution of it.&quot; 
 
 
 
 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>William J. Watkins Jr. explains departmentalism here: </p>
<p> <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2004/11/30/judicial-supremacy-exposed" rel="nofollow"></a><a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2004/11/30/judicial" rel="nofollow">http://spectator.org/archives/2004/11/30/judicial</a>&#8230; </p>
<p>He wrote: </p>
<p>&quot;Departmentalist theory is perhaps best examined in the context of President Jefferson&#039;s approach to the Sedition Act. Upon entering office, Jefferson ordered the cessation of all federal sedition prosecutions and he pardoned those who had been convicted. In 1804, Jefferson received a letter from Abigail Adams criticizing his handling of the Sedition Act controversy. Mrs. Adams argued that because the judges had upheld the Sedition Act, President Jefferson had overstepped his constitutional bounds when terminating prosecutions and pardoning offenders. </p>
<p>In a polite response, Jefferson reminded Mrs. Adams that &quot;nothing in the constitution has given [the judges] the right to decide for the executive, more than the Executive to decide for them.&quot; Both branches, continued Jefferson, &quot;are equally independent in the sphere assigned to them.&quot; Jefferson recognized that the judges, &quot;believing the law constitutional, had a right to pass a sentence of fine and imprisonment, because that power was placed in their hands by the constitution.&quot; However, this did not bind him when performing his duties as chief executive. Because he believed the Sedition Act was unconstitutional, he &quot;was bound to remit the execution of it.&quot; </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DerekSheriff</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/president-obama-the-nullifier/#comment-4155</link>
		<dc:creator>DerekSheriff</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 11:46:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6812#comment-4155</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exactly. Either Obama sincerely holds to Jefferson&#039;s theory of Departmentalism (executive nullification), or he&#039;s a hypocrite and is engaging in situational constitutionalism. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly. Either Obama sincerely holds to Jefferson&#039;s theory of Departmentalism (executive nullification), or he&#039;s a hypocrite and is engaging in situational constitutionalism. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: MichaelBoldin</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/president-obama-the-nullifier/#comment-4154</link>
		<dc:creator>MichaelBoldin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 04:04:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6812#comment-4154</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[well, it sure makes for an interesting talking point....when someone claims that nullifying something is akin to criminal action, mention this.... ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>well, it sure makes for an interesting talking point&#8230;.when someone claims that nullifying something is akin to criminal action, mention this&#8230;. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Baker</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2011/02/president-obama-the-nullifier/#comment-4153</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Baker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Feb 2011 03:02:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=6812#comment-4153</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Even a stopped clock...But it wouldn&#039;t hurt to get the article in front of those who give a crap about this particular issue .As for myself, we&#039;re about to be dragged off the edge of a cliff of entitlement deficits and if some guys want to jump holding a boy&#039;s hand, swell. ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even a stopped clock&#8230;But it wouldn&#039;t hurt to get the article in front of those who give a crap about this particular issue .As for myself, we&#039;re about to be dragged off the edge of a cliff of entitlement deficits and if some guys want to jump holding a boy&#039;s hand, swell. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
