<?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: OK, OK, Enough Already! I&#8217;ll Post Something On Health Care</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2012/06/28/ok-ok-enough-already-ill-post-something-on-health-care/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2012/06/28/ok-ok-enough-already-ill-post-something-on-health-care/</link>
	<description>A NonPartisan Analysis of Presidential Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Nov 2012 15:45:52 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matthew Dickinson</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2012/06/28/ok-ok-enough-already-ill-post-something-on-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-28037</link>
		<dc:creator>Matthew Dickinson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 30 Jun 2012 14:30:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=12849#comment-28037</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Vijay,

My sense is that this is a big unknown, because it is hard to anticipate just what kind of cases the Court will deal with in the future that have interstate commerce implications. Certainly, in theory, conservatives are pleased with Roberts&#039; more restricted reading of the clause.  By ruling that mandating economic activity is not the same as regulating it, the Court definitely took a step back from the more expansive reading of this clause that had dominated previous court rulings until recently. But in the absence of a concrete case, it is hard to see just how significant this ruling is.  Similarly, Roberts also walked the Court back from a more expansive use of the necessary and proper clause.  In theory, this is a reaffirmation of the judicially-enforceable limits on Congress power, but we will have to wait and see what the practical implications will be.  On the whole, I think conservatives have to be pleased about this aspect of the Roberts&#039; decision, and liberals a bit worried.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Vijay,</p>
<p>My sense is that this is a big unknown, because it is hard to anticipate just what kind of cases the Court will deal with in the future that have interstate commerce implications. Certainly, in theory, conservatives are pleased with Roberts&#8217; more restricted reading of the clause.  By ruling that mandating economic activity is not the same as regulating it, the Court definitely took a step back from the more expansive reading of this clause that had dominated previous court rulings until recently. But in the absence of a concrete case, it is hard to see just how significant this ruling is.  Similarly, Roberts also walked the Court back from a more expansive use of the necessary and proper clause.  In theory, this is a reaffirmation of the judicially-enforceable limits on Congress power, but we will have to wait and see what the practical implications will be.  On the whole, I think conservatives have to be pleased about this aspect of the Roberts&#8217; decision, and liberals a bit worried.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Vijay</title>
		<link>http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/2012/06/28/ok-ok-enough-already-ill-post-something-on-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-28007</link>
		<dc:creator>Vijay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:31:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sites.middlebury.edu/presidentialpower/?p=12849#comment-28007</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Reading a lot of back-and-forth about Commerce. My reading is that it hasn&#039;t changed in any substantive way because we only know that 5 justices don&#039;t think this passes Constitutional muster, but we don&#039;t know how far outside Wickard/Raich this is. I know Presidential power is your thing, but any thoughts on the Commerce aspect?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Reading a lot of back-and-forth about Commerce. My reading is that it hasn&#8217;t changed in any substantive way because we only know that 5 justices don&#8217;t think this passes Constitutional muster, but we don&#8217;t know how far outside Wickard/Raich this is. I know Presidential power is your thing, but any thoughts on the Commerce aspect?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
