<?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>damnum absque injuria &#187; Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://xrlq.com/category/law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://xrlq.com</link>
	<description>Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 28 Jan 2012 23:10:46 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Why Stupid People are NOT Protected Under the US Constitution!</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2011/08/21/why-stupid-people-are-not-protected-under-the-us-constitution/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2011/08/21/why-stupid-people-are-not-protected-under-the-us-constitution/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Aug 2011 08:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Fiskings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-Liberal Morons]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[People Unclear On The Concept]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5796</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Contrary to conventional non-wisdom, Kevin A. Lehmann&#8217;s views are NOT protected under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America. Is there anyone in the three branches of government that can interpret our most sacred document (Playboy notwithstanding) correctly? Like in Christendom where scores of sects believe mutually contradictory things but [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2011/08/21/why-stupid-people-are-not-protected-under-the-us-constitution/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Family Law is FUBAR, Part 2: Does Getting Accustomed to Something Entitle You To It?</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/09/family-law-is-fubar-part-2-does-getting-accustomed-to-something-entitle-you-to-it/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/09/family-law-is-fubar-part-2-does-getting-accustomed-to-something-entitle-you-to-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Feb 2011 04:37:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5766</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[When you get accustomed to something, you tend to feel like you own it, but usually you don&#8217;t. No one feels entitled to a job they just started, but if you&#8217;ve been working for the same company for 20 years and suddenly get laid off, you feel like your rights have been violated, even though [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/09/family-law-is-fubar-part-2-does-getting-accustomed-to-something-entitle-you-to-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Family Law Is FUBAR, Part 1: Chains of Love Act</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/08/family-law-is-fubar-part-1-chains-of-love-act/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/08/family-law-is-fubar-part-1-chains-of-love-act/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 09 Feb 2011 02:13:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5763</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[One fundamental problem with family law over the years, particularly here in the Bible belt, is the paternalistic notion that family law should aim to keep the divorce rate low, rather than accepting divorce as a reality and trying to smooth the process as much as possible when it happens. The theory seems to be [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/08/family-law-is-fubar-part-1-chains-of-love-act/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>My Big Gay Flip-Flop</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/06/big-gay-flip-flop/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/06/big-gay-flip-flop/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Feb 2011 14:52:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[As you&#8217;ve probably noticed, I don&#8217;t post here much anymore. These days, most of the links and snarky remarkies that would have have gone to the blog end up on Twitter or Facebook rather than here. However, I do still think there&#8217;s a place for the blog, particularly when it comes to lengthy, often link-ridden [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2011/02/06/big-gay-flip-flop/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Haha, Pwn3d</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2011/01/28/haha-pwn3d/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2011/01/28/haha-pwn3d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 28 Jan 2011 12:39:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5754</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[It&#8217;s official: Chicago voters will get the government they deserve. The only thing they didn&#8217;t deserve was for two unelected judges to deny them that choice because &#8220;resident&#8221; means one thing and &#8220;reside&#8221; means something totally different. Good on the IL Supreme Court for straightening that out.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2011/01/28/haha-pwn3d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On Vaughn Walker&#8217;s Non-Recusal</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2010/08/06/on-vaughn-walkers-non-recusal/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2010/08/06/on-vaughn-walkers-non-recusal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 01:49:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5681</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Patterico asks whether it was proper for a gay judge to rule on the constitutionality of gay marriage. My take is that to the extent you agree with Judge Walker&#8217;s substantive ruling that allowing gays to marry in no way diminishes the value of a traditional marriage, while it obviously makes a huge difference to [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2010/08/06/on-vaughn-walkers-non-recusal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Anchor Baby Amendment</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2010/08/01/the-anchor-baby-amendment/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2010/08/01/the-anchor-baby-amendment/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Aug 2010 18:38:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5670</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lindsey Graham seems intent on shedding his nickname &#8220;Grahamnesty&#8221; and is hinting he may soon introduce a constitutional amendment denying citizenship to children of illegal aliens born as a result of their illegal presence in the U.S.  It seems like a reasonable enough idea, but of course President Obama will veto it.*  Kudos to Graham [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2010/08/01/the-anchor-baby-amendment/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>North Carolina Laws Are So Gay</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/27/north-carolina-laws-are-so-gay/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/27/north-carolina-laws-are-so-gay/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 Jul 2010 02:46:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Non-Liberal Morons]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[If you are straight, unmarried (or separated) and living in North Carolina, I&#8217;ve got some bad news for you: getting laid is illegal. North Carolina General Statute 14-184 provides that: § 14‑184. Fornication and adultery. If any man and woman, not being married to each other, shall lewdly and lasciviously associate, bed and cohabit together, [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/27/north-carolina-laws-are-so-gay/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Partial Defense of Substantive Due Process</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/07/a-partial-defense-of-substantive-due-process/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/07/a-partial-defense-of-substantive-due-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jul 2010 04:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Horses, Dead]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[NK asks, I presume rhetorically, if every stupid law is unconstitutional. This brings me to a topic I&#8217;ve been meaning to blog about since the McDonald decision: was the reasoning of the Alito plurality really that bad, or even all that different from Justice Thomas&#8217;s position? In other words, is a law forbidding law-abiding residents [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/07/a-partial-defense-of-substantive-due-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>10</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Waiting Periods</title>
		<link>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/04/waiting-periods/</link>
		<comments>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/04/waiting-periods/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 04 Jul 2010 21:53:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Xrlq</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Issues]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://xrlq.com/?p=5635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Gaston County is considering a 30-day waiting period on marriages performed by magistrates, unless the couple can show they&#8217;ve received premarital counseling. That strikes me as a very reasonable idea, particularly if Kinston Free Press&#8217;s editorial against it is the best its opponents can do: The proposal originated from a pro-marriage advocacy group in Gaston [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://xrlq.com/2010/07/04/waiting-periods/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

