<?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>JB, AMK, and FF</title><link>http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/30/jb-amk-and-ff.aspx</link><description>If I understand Jack's account of "Living Constitutionalism" correctly, the basic idea is that (a) Justices will naturally pull the Constitution in the direction of what they see as sound public policy, and that (b) this is a good thing, as we end up</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2.1 SP2 (Build: 61129.2)</generator></channel></rss>