<?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: Worst Constitutional Law Movie Ever</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/worst-constitutional-law-movie-ever.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/worst-constitutional-law-movie-ever.html</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:29:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: David Lyons</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/worst-constitutional-law-movie-ever.html/comment-page-1#comment-67429</link>
		<dc:creator>David Lyons</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:35:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=24635#comment-67429</guid>
		<description>I have not seen Tennessee Johnson, but it sounds as though the complaint here might be more about historical interpretation and inaccuracy than poor representation of constitutional law. On the latter, I have to agree with the two previous comments: Double Jeopardy was a movie made by and for the hard of thinking.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have not seen Tennessee Johnson, but it sounds as though the complaint here might be more about historical interpretation and inaccuracy than poor representation of constitutional law. On the latter, I have to agree with the two previous comments: Double Jeopardy was a movie made by and for the hard of thinking.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Howard Wasserman</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/worst-constitutional-law-movie-ever.html/comment-page-1#comment-67408</link>
		<dc:creator>Howard Wasserman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:03:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=24635#comment-67408</guid>
		<description>Agree about Double Jeopardy. I would add &quot;The Star Chamber&quot; (judges, angry about having to release bad guys because of the Fourth Amendment, form a board that puts out contract hits on them).</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Agree about Double Jeopardy. I would add &#8220;The Star Chamber&#8221; (judges, angry about having to release bad guys because of the Fourth Amendment, form a board that puts out contract hits on them).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rational</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2010/01/worst-constitutional-law-movie-ever.html/comment-page-1#comment-67403</link>
		<dc:creator>Rational</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:10:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.concurringopinions.com/?p=24635#comment-67403</guid>
		<description>mmm, i would personally nominate double jeapordy for telling a whole generation that murder is legal under the right circumstances...  at least that deserves an honorable mention.

i wonder if these movies can be streamed on netflix. i mean i hate to waste a spot in my DVD queue for it, but for morbid curiousity.

Btw, by the same argument that 1776 sort of counts, wouldn&#039;t birth of a nation also qualify, in its ugly way?  certainly in an Ackermanian sense, it captures a very negative &quot;constitutional moment.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>mmm, i would personally nominate double jeapordy for telling a whole generation that murder is legal under the right circumstances&#8230;  at least that deserves an honorable mention.</p>
<p>i wonder if these movies can be streamed on netflix. i mean i hate to waste a spot in my DVD queue for it, but for morbid curiousity.</p>
<p>Btw, by the same argument that 1776 sort of counts, wouldn&#8217;t birth of a nation also qualify, in its ugly way?  certainly in an Ackermanian sense, it captures a very negative &#8220;constitutional moment.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

