<?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: Can There Be An &#8220;Undeclared&#8221; Canon of Statutory Interpretation?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/can-there-be-an-undeclared-canon-of-statutory-interpretation.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/can-there-be-an-undeclared-canon-of-statutory-interpretation.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: Bobo Linq</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/can-there-be-an-undeclared-canon-of-statutory-interpretation.html/comment-page-1#comment-66204</link>
		<dc:creator>Bobo Linq</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:49:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22052#comment-66204</guid>
		<description>Presumably you are referring not to a &quot;unique canon about national institutions,&quot; but rather to a &quot;canon about unique national institutions.&quot; You should therefore probably write: &quot;unique-national-institution canon.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Presumably you are referring not to a &#8220;unique canon about national institutions,&#8221; but rather to a &#8220;canon about unique national institutions.&#8221; You should therefore probably write: &#8220;unique-national-institution canon.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill Reynolds</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/11/can-there-be-an-undeclared-canon-of-statutory-interpretation.html/comment-page-1#comment-66201</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill Reynolds</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:09:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=22052#comment-66201</guid>
		<description>Canons are useful as reminders of possible interpretive methods, but they should never be routinely followed.  Always remember Karl Llewellyn and his warning on counter-canons in 4 Vanderbilt.

I used to teach that the baseball antitrust exemption was based on the old Chevvy commercial--&quot;baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet--but the lower cts have been whittling away at that.  At best, baseball is now a canon lite.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Canons are useful as reminders of possible interpretive methods, but they should never be routinely followed.  Always remember Karl Llewellyn and his warning on counter-canons in 4 Vanderbilt.</p>
<p>I used to teach that the baseball antitrust exemption was based on the old Chevvy commercial&#8211;&#8221;baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet&#8211;but the lower cts have been whittling away at that.  At best, baseball is now a canon lite.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

