<?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: PRYOR VS. MOORE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pryor_vs_moore/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pryor_vs_moore/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:53:54 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Kristopher</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pryor_vs_moore/comment-page-1/#comment-4550</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2919#comment-4550</guid>
		<description>The more likely scenario is that Pryor acknowledges that he supports Moore&#039;s position, but that Roy is wrong to defy the court order.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The more likely scenario is that Pryor acknowledges that he supports Moore's position, but that Roy is wrong to defy the court order.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Norbizness</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pryor_vs_moore/comment-page-1/#comment-4551</link>
		<dc:creator>Norbizness</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2919#comment-4551</guid>
		<description>James: As for the &quot;job includes only Alabama law&quot;, the answer is no. May have worked for George Wallace back in the day, or for whoever was the Attorney General of Arkansas back in 1955, but not today.

CHeck the CalPundit trackback for more info, but trust me, I&#039;m saying it more nicely.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James: As for the "job includes only Alabama law", the answer is no. May have worked for George Wallace back in the day, or for whoever was the Attorney General of Arkansas back in 1955, but not today.</p>
<p>CHeck the CalPundit trackback for more info, but trust me, I'm saying it more nicely.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James Joyner</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pryor_vs_moore/comment-page-1/#comment-4552</link>
		<dc:creator>James Joyner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2919#comment-4552</guid>
		<description>Nor,

Enforcement of federal law is outside the jurisdiction of state officials. Forcing compliance with federal court orders is up to the US DOJ, not the Alabama attorney general.

That wouldn&#039;t preclude him making a public statement on the matter, of course.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nor,</p>
<p>Enforcement of federal law is outside the jurisdiction of state officials. Forcing compliance with federal court orders is up to the US DOJ, not the Alabama attorney general.</p>
<p>That wouldn't preclude him making a public statement on the matter, of course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joe</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pryor_vs_moore/comment-page-1/#comment-4553</link>
		<dc:creator>Joe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2919#comment-4553</guid>
		<description>Whuh?

Enforcement of federal law is outside the jurisdiction of state officials?  That&#039;s one of the sillier things I&#039;ve heard so far this week, and it&#039;s not like it&#039;s Monday.

OF COURSE state officials may--and in most states are required to--enforce federal law.  Indeed, many federal laws, as enacted, specifically contemplate enforcement by state officials.  You know why the Constitution did not specifically reference the Justice Department?  Because it wasn&#039;t necessary.  It was fully intended that state officials would enforce federal statutes.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Whuh?</p>
<p>Enforcement of federal law is outside the jurisdiction of state officials?  That's one of the sillier things I've heard so far this week, and it's not like it's Monday.</p>
<p>OF COURSE state officials may--and in most states are required to--enforce federal law.  Indeed, many federal laws, as enacted, specifically contemplate enforcement by state officials.  You know why the Constitution did not specifically reference the Justice Department?  Because it wasn't necessary.  It was fully intended that state officials would enforce federal statutes.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The World Around You</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pryor_vs_moore/comment-page-1/#comment-4554</link>
		<dc:creator>The World Around You</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2919#comment-4554</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Pryor and Moore&lt;/strong&gt;
James comments on a post at Southern Appeal predicting that Attorney General Pryor will rebuke Judge Moore for refusing to abide by the federal court ruling to remove the Ten Commandments monument. While I agree with James that this would not be a part...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Pryor and Moore</strong><br />
James comments on a post at Southern Appeal predicting that Attorney General Pryor will rebuke Judge Moore for refusing to abide by the federal court ruling to remove the Ten Commandments monument. While I agree with James that this would not be a part...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CalPundit</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/pryor_vs_moore/comment-page-1/#comment-4555</link>
		<dc:creator>CalPundit</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 31 Dec 1969 18:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=2919#comment-4555</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Do the Right Thing&lt;/strong&gt;
DO THE RIGHT THING....Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is planning to announce on Thursday whether or not he will obey a court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. James Joyner, responding to a suggestion...

---</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Do the Right Thing</strong><br />
DO THE RIGHT THING....Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore is planning to announce on Thursday whether or not he will obey a court order to remove his Ten Commandments monument from the Alabama Judicial Building. James Joyner, responding to a suggestion...</p>
<p>---</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
