<?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; establishment clause</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patrickoden.com/tag/establishment-clause/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>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>
		<item>
		<title>The Establishment Clause</title>
		<link>http://www.patrickoden.com/religious-liberty/the-establishment-clause/</link>
		<comments>http://www.patrickoden.com/religious-liberty/the-establishment-clause/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:38:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Patrick Oden</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[religious liberty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[establishment clause]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[first amendment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[freedom from religion]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.patrickoden.com/?p=28</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Freedom From Religion The Establishment Clause seems to be one of the least-understood parts of the US Constitution. Though whether that misunderstanding is borne out of true confusion or willful ignorance—or in some extreme cases, the practice of historical revisionism1—is debatable. The First Amendment contains several important ideas, that we call clauses. In full, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.patrickoden.com/religious-liberty/the-establishment-clause/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
