<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><title>The Living Constitution (A Response to Jack)</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/19/the-living-constitution-a-response-to-jack.aspx</link><description>Jack's description of the "living constitution" is apt, but he glosses over what is really at stake. Academics have long known that the justices are motivated by their political views, and these views appear in a relatively straightforward way in their</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>