<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.0.2" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Legal Theory Lexicon</title>
	<link>http://blawgcoop.com/badglacier/2005/06/27/legal-theory-lexicon/</link>
	<description>Whee!</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 12:04:04 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: Josh</title>
		<link>http://blawgcoop.com/badglacier/2005/06/27/legal-theory-lexicon/#comment-1112</link>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Jul 2005 16:57:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blawgcoop.com/badglacier/2005/06/27/legal-theory-lexicon/#comment-1112</guid>
					<description>Oh, I'm not really getting much from it, and I'm certainly not reading all of the entries, but I find some of it pretty interesting.  Like the Originalism entry, for instance.  I skipped over the parts I didn't understand or didn't care to think too much about, and I found out that originalism started out emphasizing the original intentions of the framers, but now, supposedly because of Scalia, it focuses on the meaning the constitution would have had to people of the late 1700s.

I like random facts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, I&#8217;m not really getting much from it, and I&#8217;m certainly not reading all of the entries, but I find some of it pretty interesting.  Like the Originalism entry, for instance.  I skipped over the parts I didn&#8217;t understand or didn&#8217;t care to think too much about, and I found out that originalism started out emphasizing the original intentions of the framers, but now, supposedly because of Scalia, it focuses on the meaning the constitution would have had to people of the late 1700s.</p>
<p>I like random facts.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: CM</title>
		<link>http://blawgcoop.com/badglacier/2005/06/27/legal-theory-lexicon/#comment-1111</link>
		<pubDate>Thu, 30 Jun 2005 19:33:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blawgcoop.com/badglacier/2005/06/27/legal-theory-lexicon/#comment-1111</guid>
					<description>Are you really reading this for fun? More power to you.

First sentence:
&quot;The dominant approaches to normative legal theory in the American legal academy converge on fairly robust role for the state and government subject to the constraints imposed by an equally robust set of individual rights.&quot;

Too... many... syllables... 

I think I'll leave the lexicon-reading until school starts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Are you really reading this for fun? More power to you.</p>
<p>First sentence:<br />
&#8220;The dominant approaches to normative legal theory in the American legal academy converge on fairly robust role for the state and government subject to the constraints imposed by an equally robust set of individual rights.&#8221;</p>
<p>Too&#8230; many&#8230; syllables&#8230; </p>
<p>I think I&#8217;ll leave the lexicon-reading until school starts.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

