<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	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/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Patrick Oden &#187; legal theory</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patrickoden.com/category/legal-theory/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patrickoden.com</link>
	<description>The Common Lawyer, Now in Blog Form</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 04:36:44 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
		<item>
		<title>States&#8217; rights and individual rights</title>
		<link>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/states-rights-and-individual-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/states-rights-and-individual-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 May 2010 04:36:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Oden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[individual rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[racism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[states' rights]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patrickoden.com/?p=188</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This Salon article says, in summation, that states do not have rights, only people do. Not quite. I understand the sentiment. People have rights, and should have rights, while legal entities do not (or, at least, not as many). States are legal entities, comprised of the residents thereof. The author takes &#8220;states&#8217; rights&#8221; to be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/states-rights-and-individual-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FCC loses Net Neutrality case</title>
		<link>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/fcc-loses-net-neutrality-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/fcc-loses-net-neutrality-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Apr 2010 17:21:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Oden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[comcast]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fcc]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[net neutrality]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patrickoden.com/?p=186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I wonder if this will embolden the Internet Service Providers to revert back to their torrent-busting ways? &#8230; [T]he U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled today that the agency lacks the authority to regulate the policies of Internet service providers. In Comcast Corp. v. FCC, the court considered whether the FCC [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/fcc-loses-net-neutrality-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>President Obama: the First Year</title>
		<link>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/president-obama-the-first-year/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/president-obama-the-first-year/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 20:54:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Oden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first year]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president obama]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patrickoden.com/?p=159</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Some Thoughts on the State of the Union I am not satisfied with President Obama&#8217;s first year, but I temper that with the idea that one year is not long enough to get everything done that a president would probably like to accomplish. I hope that whatever health care reform comes out of this is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/president-obama-the-first-year/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Source of Law Is Not Religion</title>
		<link>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/source-of-law-is-not-religion/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/source-of-law-is-not-religion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:24:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Oden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian nation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Judeo-Christian]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[source of law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Thomas Jefferson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patrickoden.com/?p=121</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What is the source of law? Many people are taught, or come to conclude on their own, that religion is the source of law. This misguided belief is probably more widespread in monotheistic religions, which tend to have as their godhead some sort of divine lawgiver, than in pantheistic or maybe even polytheistic religions. The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/source-of-law-is-not-religion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>16</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rebuttal to Hamilton and No Possible Secular Purpose to Stupak</title>
		<link>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/rebuttal-to-hamilton-and-no-possible-secular-purpose-to-stupak/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/rebuttal-to-hamilton-and-no-possible-secular-purpose-to-stupak/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Oden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[legal theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[establishment clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religious purpose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[secular purpose]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stupak amendment]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patrickoden.com/?p=115</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Professor and legal commentator Marci Hamilton posted an article on why she believes1 the Stupak amendment to the recently-passed health care bill in the House of Representatives is unconstitutional. Her theory is, in part, that the amendment violates the Establishment Clause. The basis for this claim, according to Hamilton, is that the “anti-abortion movement is [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickoden.com/legal-theory/rebuttal-to-hamilton-and-no-possible-secular-purpose-to-stupak/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
