<?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: US Constitution says Hillary Clinton can&#8217;t serve as Secretary of State</title>
	<atom:link href="http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/2008/11/us-constitution-says-hillary-clinton-cant-serve-as-secretary-of-state/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/2008/11/us-constitution-says-hillary-clinton-cant-serve-as-secretary-of-state/</link>
	<description>Political analysis and commentary from a conservative point of view</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:00:45 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Steven Pounders</title>
		<link>http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/2008/11/us-constitution-says-hillary-clinton-cant-serve-as-secretary-of-state/comment-page-1/#comment-695</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven Pounders</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/?p=503#comment-695</guid>
		<description>For anyone insisting on strict adherence to the constitution, I should point out that the argument against Senator Clinton&#039;s appointment to the cabinet falls apart constitutionally. The article only applies &quot;during the Time for which he was elected&quot;.

Clearly the Framers are not addressing female senators.

Oh ... but was that really the &quot;intent&quot; of the framers. Shouldn&#039;t we follow the &quot;principle&quot; of the constitution rather than the letter?

Well, not as Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen likes to point out &quot;Unless one views the Constitution&#039;s rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient&quot; ... because &quot;the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text&quot; does not apply to women. (I&#039;m using Mr. Paulsen&#039;s oft-quoted words against his own argument, of course.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For anyone insisting on strict adherence to the constitution, I should point out that the argument against Senator Clinton&#8217;s appointment to the cabinet falls apart constitutionally. The article only applies &#8220;during the Time for which he was elected&#8221;.</p>
<p>Clearly the Framers are not addressing female senators.</p>
<p>Oh &#8230; but was that really the &#8220;intent&#8221; of the framers. Shouldn&#8217;t we follow the &#8220;principle&#8221; of the constitution rather than the letter?</p>
<p>Well, not as Professor Michael Stokes Paulsen likes to point out &#8220;Unless one views the Constitution&#8217;s rules as rules that may be dispensed with when inconvenient&#8221; &#8230; because &#8220;the plain linguistic meaning of this chunk of constitutional text&#8221; does not apply to women. (I&#8217;m using Mr. Paulsen&#8217;s oft-quoted words against his own argument, of course.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ChooseTheHero.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Hillary and Senate Democrats Invalidate the Constitution!</title>
		<link>http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/2008/11/us-constitution-says-hillary-clinton-cant-serve-as-secretary-of-state/comment-page-1/#comment-650</link>
		<dc:creator>ChooseTheHero.com &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Hillary and Senate Democrats Invalidate the Constitution!</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Nov 2008 03:00:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://politics.upnorthmommy.com/?p=503#comment-650</guid>
		<description>[...]  US Constitution says Hillary Clinton can’t serve as Secretary of State [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...]  US Constitution says Hillary Clinton can’t serve as Secretary of State [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
