<?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: A correction on the purported &#8220;plausible deniability&#8221; quote</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/a-correction-on-the-purported-plausible-deniability-quote.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/a-correction-on-the-purported-plausible-deniability-quote.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:44:18 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: AYY</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/a-correction-on-the-purported-plausible-deniability-quote.html/comment-page-1#comment-67361</link>
		<dc:creator>AYY</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=24441#comment-67361</guid>
		<description>Maybe I&#039;m missing something here, but I don&#039;t understand what this testimony is supposed to be relevant to. Where does it say in the federal constitution that religious organizations can&#039;t work together to try to pass a state constitutional amendment?  How is that different from people getting together to fund the litigation that challenges the amendment?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Maybe I&#8217;m missing something here, but I don&#8217;t understand what this testimony is supposed to be relevant to. Where does it say in the federal constitution that religious organizations can&#8217;t work together to try to pass a state constitutional amendment?  How is that different from people getting together to fund the litigation that challenges the amendment?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kaimipono D. Wenger</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/a-correction-on-the-purported-plausible-deniability-quote.html/comment-page-1#comment-67339</link>
		<dc:creator>Kaimipono D. Wenger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Jan 2010 04:02:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=24441#comment-67339</guid>
		<description>Update:  Andrew Sullivan has updated his blog, noting that the phrase is not a direct quote:  http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-mormon-hierarchys-plausible-deniability-ctd.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Update:  Andrew Sullivan has updated his blog, noting that the phrase is not a direct quote:  <a href="http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-mormon-hierarchys-plausible-deniability-ctd.html" rel="nofollow">http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/the-mormon-hierarchys-plausible-deniability-ctd.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

