<?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: The EPA vs the Constitution</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/the-epa-vs-the-constitution/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/the-epa-vs-the-constitution/</link>
	<description>The Tenther Grapevine</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 09:55:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: WilliamSchooler</title>
		<link>http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/01/the-epa-vs-the-constitution/#comment-5654</link>
		<dc:creator>WilliamSchooler</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Jan 2012 13:59:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/?p=10034#comment-5654</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why would the EPA be considered in the confines of the Constitution? It was created out side the constitution and should not even exists. So why would they stay within the confines of something they are not?

 

My question would be who or what are they? A bunch of people hired into an organization that should not even be there pretending to do anything at the expense of tax paying citizens.

 

A lot of times I think we attempt to challenge these things on some legal term where some weird idea of law is born.

Is this because all look at supreme choice as a court or a civilization? I have to ask why some attorney gets the keys to the castle in all cases?

 

When is it people, life, public all one in the same get to stand up and represent themselves as they are without such a made up construct of this so called made up law?

 

 

Rule of law is made up of nature, the law that supports life which begs to differ with said made up laws, yet we will consistently attempt to fight back using the made up law versus the Rule of law which states clearly, life in support of life. If I am wrong please explain it to me because every where I look all I see is this made up law in view while others claim rule of law as authority. What makes Rule of law the authority if it is not used as the authority which is life as the deciding factors of its acts towards itself exactly?

 

When I look through the web on complexity what I see is made up complexity and made up law is very complex isn’t? Not well defined or clear but very questionable in all attempts to be assumed or interpreted.

 

Yet life doing the acts that supports itself is a very clear picture because it both preserves and allows life to live which is doing what it does. Made up law attempts to control these acts that life does by living. So I keep asking myself why do we keep taking the hard road or the obscured road to protect ourselves versus using our skills as life to protect ourselves from these false made up laws that do not allow life. The last I heard and am reading is that the constitution limits but the acts of Government and made up laws expand it. Which result am I to measure by to get the to the truth of the matter? The acts of lawyers or the acts that life does to support itself I ask you? Which one shares dominance with us?

 ]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Why would the EPA be considered in the confines of the Constitution? It was created out side the constitution and should not even exists. So why would they stay within the confines of something they are not?</p>
<p>My question would be who or what are they? A bunch of people hired into an organization that should not even be there pretending to do anything at the expense of tax paying citizens.</p>
<p>A lot of times I think we attempt to challenge these things on some legal term where some weird idea of law is born.</p>
<p>Is this because all look at supreme choice as a court or a civilization? I have to ask why some attorney gets the keys to the castle in all cases?</p>
<p>When is it people, life, public all one in the same get to stand up and represent themselves as they are without such a made up construct of this so called made up law?</p>
<p>Rule of law is made up of nature, the law that supports life which begs to differ with said made up laws, yet we will consistently attempt to fight back using the made up law versus the Rule of law which states clearly, life in support of life. If I am wrong please explain it to me because every where I look all I see is this made up law in view while others claim rule of law as authority. What makes Rule of law the authority if it is not used as the authority which is life as the deciding factors of its acts towards itself exactly?</p>
<p>When I look through the web on complexity what I see is made up complexity and made up law is very complex isn’t? Not well defined or clear but very questionable in all attempts to be assumed or interpreted.</p>
<p>Yet life doing the acts that supports itself is a very clear picture because it both preserves and allows life to live which is doing what it does. Made up law attempts to control these acts that life does by living. So I keep asking myself why do we keep taking the hard road or the obscured road to protect ourselves versus using our skills as life to protect ourselves from these false made up laws that do not allow life. The last I heard and am reading is that the constitution limits but the acts of Government and made up laws expand it. Which result am I to measure by to get the to the truth of the matter? The acts of lawyers or the acts that life does to support itself I ask you? Which one shares dominance with us?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
