<?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: Supreme Court to Consider Military Recruting Ban</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/supreme_court_to_consider_military_recruting_ban/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/supreme_court_to_consider_military_recruting_ban/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Nov 2009 09:20:03 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: JackLewis.net</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/supreme_court_to_consider_military_recruting_ban/comment-page-1/#comment-44644</link>
		<dc:creator>JackLewis.net</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2005 15:41:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=10336#comment-44644</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Around the Blogosphere&lt;/strong&gt;
Jessica&#039;s Law Michelle Malkin, GOP Bloggers MSM v. Bloggers Captain&#039;s Quarters Print Newspapers on Decline Outside the Beltway, Patterico, GOP...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Around the Blogosphere</strong><br />
Jessica's Law Michelle Malkin, GOP Bloggers MSM v. Bloggers Captain's Quarters Print Newspapers on Decline Outside the Beltway, Patterico, GOP...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Neo</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/supreme_court_to_consider_military_recruting_ban/comment-page-1/#comment-44596</link>
		<dc:creator>Neo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 03 May 2005 05:32:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=10336#comment-44596</guid>
		<description>I predict that the Supremes will throw out the 1st Amendment argument completely and instead cite the 14th Amendment, as this is simply a term of a (pseudo) commercial activity, much the way the whole slew of educational Title programs are enforced.

Golden Rule:  he who has the gold makes the rules.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I predict that the Supremes will throw out the 1st Amendment argument completely and instead cite the 14th Amendment, as this is simply a term of a (pseudo) commercial activity, much the way the whole slew of educational Title programs are enforced.</p>
<p>Golden Rule:  he who has the gold makes the rules.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: McGehee</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/supreme_court_to_consider_military_recruting_ban/comment-page-1/#comment-44567</link>
		<dc:creator>McGehee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2005 22:41:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=10336#comment-44567</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;The real issue here is whether it is constitutional for the Federal government to discrimintate against gays who want to protect and fight for their country.&lt;/i&gt;

That&#039;s a bigger issue than the ability of the armed forces to recruit the people it wants and needs, so that it can protect the rights of malcontents to gripe about how American society doesn&#039;t do everything &lt;i&gt;their&lt;/i&gt; way?

Um, I don&#039;t think so.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>The real issue here is whether it is constitutional for the Federal government to discrimintate against gays who want to protect and fight for their country.</i></p>
<p>That's a bigger issue than the ability of the armed forces to recruit the people it wants and needs, so that it can protect the rights of malcontents to gripe about how American society doesn't do everything <i>their</i> way?</p>
<p>Um, I don't think so.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: montana wildhack</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/supreme_court_to_consider_military_recruting_ban/comment-page-1/#comment-44532</link>
		<dc:creator>montana wildhack</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2005 18:01:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=10336#comment-44532</guid>
		<description>Ann Althouse also predicts this will be overturned 9-0. (sorry, too lazy to look for link!)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ann Althouse also predicts this will be overturned 9-0. (sorry, too lazy to look for link!)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GP</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/supreme_court_to_consider_military_recruting_ban/comment-page-1/#comment-44523</link>
		<dc:creator>GP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2005 17:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=10336#comment-44523</guid>
		<description>This case is a classic example of the wonderful inefficiency of our government system.  The real issue here is whether it is constitutional for the Federal government to discrimintate against gays who want to protect and fight for their country.  The matter at hand in this case is more of a side show that errupted as a result of overboiling tempers of the right and left.

I don&#039;t mean to say that the inefficiency is bad.  Our system has worked so well for so long, and there is certainly an argument that this inefficiency has a positive effect of cooling tempers at the fringes while the majority of the country gets comfortable with social progress.

Like with many past social movements in America, gays will achieve equal footing in US society one day.  Barely a week goes by that gays aren&#039;t awarded equalized rights in some jurisdiction of our country or our allies.  At some point if the US doesn&#039;t equalize rights, their ability to be a member of the global economy and society will deminish.  It is really all a matter of timing as to when gays get these rights here.  Sometimes our country is painfully frustrating though in its slow path to progess on social issues.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This case is a classic example of the wonderful inefficiency of our government system.  The real issue here is whether it is constitutional for the Federal government to discrimintate against gays who want to protect and fight for their country.  The matter at hand in this case is more of a side show that errupted as a result of overboiling tempers of the right and left.</p>
<p>I don't mean to say that the inefficiency is bad.  Our system has worked so well for so long, and there is certainly an argument that this inefficiency has a positive effect of cooling tempers at the fringes while the majority of the country gets comfortable with social progress.</p>
<p>Like with many past social movements in America, gays will achieve equal footing in US society one day.  Barely a week goes by that gays aren't awarded equalized rights in some jurisdiction of our country or our allies.  At some point if the US doesn't equalize rights, their ability to be a member of the global economy and society will deminish.  It is really all a matter of timing as to when gays get these rights here.  Sometimes our country is painfully frustrating though in its slow path to progess on social issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
