<?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>Concurring Opinions &#187; Law Rev (Harvard)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/category/law-rev-harvard/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com</link>
	<description>The Law, the Universe, and Everything</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:23:11 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.3</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 122:6 (April 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/harvard_law_rev_11.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/harvard_law_rev_11.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Apr 2009 22:43:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/04/harvard-law-review-1226-april-2009.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Vol. 122 · April 2009 · No. 6</p>




 ARTICLES


FORESEEABILITY AND</p>
<p>COPYRIGHT INCENTIVES

 </p>
<p>Shyamkrishna Balganesh


 </p>
<p>ANTI-INQUISITORIALISM
 David Alan Sklansky








NOTES


Retreat: The Supreme Court and the New Police


Go Directly to Jail: White Collar Sentencing After the Sarbanes-Oxley Act


Church, Choice, and Charters: A New Wrinkle for Public Education?


RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


 Third Circuit Holds University Sexual Harassment Policy
Unconstitutional.— DeJohn v. Temple University, 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2008).


Wisconsin Supreme Court Applies Sexual Assault Statute to Attempted
Sexual Intercourse with a Corpse. — State v. Grunke, 752 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. 2008).


RECENT PUBLICATIONS</p>
<p>Full</p>
<p>Text




]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>--></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img class="aligncenter" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 122 · April 2009 · No. 6</a></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 97%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>ARTICLES</strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="&lt;/p"><span style="font-family: times;">FORESEEABILITY AND</span></a></p>
<p><a href="&lt;/p"><span style="font-family: times;">COPYRIGHT INCENTIVES<br />
</span></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="top"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Shyamkrishna Balganesh</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">ANTI-INQUISITORIALISM</a></span></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><em>David Alan Sklansky</em></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 95%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>NOTES</strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="&lt;/p"><span style="font-family: times;">Retreat: The Supreme Court and the New Police</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="&lt;/p"><span style="font-family: times;">Go Directly to Jail: White Collar Sentencing After the Sarbanes-Oxley Act</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="&lt;/p"><span style="font-family: times;">Church, Choice, and Charters: A New Wrinkle for Public Education?</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT CASES</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong></strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a><a href="&lt;/p"><span style="font-family: times;">Third Circuit Holds University Sexual Harassment Policy<br />
Unconstitutional.</span><span style="font-family: times;">— <em>DeJohn v. Temple University</em>, 537 F.3d 301 (3d Cir. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="&lt;/p"><span style="font-family: times;">Wisconsin Supreme Court Applies Sexual Assault Statute to Attempted<br />
Sexual Intercourse with a Corpse. — <em>State v. Grunke</em>, 752 N.W.2d 769 (Wis. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.shtml">Full</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.shtml">Text</a></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/04/harvard_law_rev_11.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 122:5 (March 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/03/harvard_law_rev_14.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/03/harvard_law_rev_14.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:10:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/03/harvard-law-review-1225-march-2009.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Vol. 122 · March 2009 · No. 5</p>




 </p>
<p>IN</p>
<p>MEMORIAM: OLIVER OLDMAN</p>
<p>


 William P. Alford         Richard M. Bird</p>
<p> Michael J. McIntyre


 Minoru Nakazato and J. Mark Ramseyer     Richard Pomp</p>
<p> Eric M. Zolt


 ARTICLES


 INTIMATE DISCRIMINATION: THE STATE&#8217;S ROLE IN THE ACCIDENTS OF SEX AND LOVE

 Elizabeth F. Emens


ADJUSTING ALIENABILITY
 Lee Anne Fennell








NOTES


 Political Gerrymandering 2000-2008: &#8220;A Self-Limiting Enterprise&#8221;?


 Designing the Public Domain


 The Rule of Law in the Marketplace of Ideas:
Pledges or Promises by Candidates for Judicial Election


RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


 Seventh Circuit Allows Employee Terminated for Undergoing
In Vitro Fertilization To Bring Sex Discrimination Claim.
— Hall v. Nalco Co., 534 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2008).


 D.C. Circuit Again Invalidates FEC Regulations Implementing
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. — Shays v. FEC,
528 F.3d [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>--></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 122 · March 2009 · No. 5</a></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 97%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/march09/march09.shtml">IN</a></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/march09/march09.shtml">MEMORIAM: OLIVER OLDMAN</a></strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong></strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" width="65%" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;">William P. Alford         Richard M. Bird</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"> Michael J. McIntyre</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" width="65%" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;">Minoru Nakazato and J. Mark Ramseyer     Richard Pomp</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"> Eric M. Zolt</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>ARTICLES</strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">INTIMATE DISCRIMINATION: THE STATE&#8217;S ROLE IN THE ACCIDENTS OF SEX AND LOVE<br />
</a></span></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="top"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Elizabeth F. Emens</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/march09/fennell.shtml">ADJUSTING ALIENABILITY</a></span></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Lee Anne Fennell</em></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 95%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>NOTES</strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">Political Gerrymandering 2000-2008: &#8220;A Self-Limiting Enterprise&#8221;?</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">Designing the Public Domain</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">The Rule of Law in the Marketplace of Ideas:<br />
Pledges or Promises by Candidates for Judicial Election</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT CASES</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong></strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">Seventh Circuit Allows Employee Terminated for Undergoing<br />
In Vitro Fertilization To Bring Sex Discrimination Claim.<br />
— <em>Hall v. Nalco Co.</em>, 534 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2008).</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">D.C. Circuit Again Invalidates FEC Regulations Implementing<br />
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. — <em>Shays v. FEC</em>,<br />
528 F.3d 914 (D.C. Cir. 2008).</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">Second Circuit Suggests that Statutory Interpretations in Agency Manuals<br />
Are Ineligible for<em> Chevron</em> Deference.<br />
— <em>Estate of Landers v. Leavitt</em>, 545 F.3d 98 (2d Cir. 2008).</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p">California Supreme Court Declares Prohibition of Same-Sex Marriages<br />
Unconstitutional.— <em>In re Marriage Cases</em>, 183 P.3d 384 (Cal. 2008).</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/march09/march09.shtml">Full</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/march09/march09.shtml">Text</a></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/03/harvard_law_rev_14.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 122:4 (February 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/harvard_law_rev_13.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/harvard_law_rev_13.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:06:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/02/harvard-law-review-1224-february-2009.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>

<p></p>
<p>Vol. 122 · February 2009 · No. 4</p>

</p>

ARTICLES</p>
<p>


TRIMMING
Cass R. Sunstein


OUR SCHMITTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Adrian Vermeule




<p></p>
</p>

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW &#8211;</p>
<p>ACCESS TO COURTS</p>
<p>Full</p>
<p>Text


Table of</p>
<p>Contents


I.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Introduction


II.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Compensating Victims of Wrongful Detention,</p>
<p>Torture, and Abuse in the</p>
<p>&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;U.S. War on</p>
<p>Terror


III.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Mandatory Arbitration Clauses: Proposals for</p>
<p>Reform of Consumer-</p>
<p>&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Defendant</p>
<p>Arbitration


IV.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Access to Courts and Videoconferencing in</p>
<p>Immigration Court</p>
<p>&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Proceedings


V.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The Political Question Doctrine, Executive</p>
<p>Deference, and Foreign</p>
<p>&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Relations


VI.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Aesthetic Injuries, Animal Rights, and</p>
<p>Anthropomorphism




</p>

</p>
<p>NOTE</p>
<p>


Prediction Markets and Law: A Skeptical Account


</p>
<p>RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


En Banc Third Circuit Strikes Down Federal Statute Prohibiting the Interstate</p>
<p>Sale of Depictions of Animal Cruelty. &#8212; United States v. Stevens, 533 F.3d</p>
<p>218 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc).


Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Accepts Loss of a Chance in Medical</p>
<p>Malpractice Suits. &#8212; Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, 890 N.E.2d 819 (Mass.</p>
<p>2008).


</p>
<p>Tenth Circuit Strikes Down Colorado Law Exempting</p>
<p>&#8220;Pervasively Sectarian&#8221; [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<style type="text/css">
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
</style>
<p><center><img alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 122 · February 2009 · No. 4</a></center></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="97%"  cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><b>ARTICLES</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/sunstein.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">TRIMMING<br /></font></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><i>Cass R. Sunstein</i></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/vermeule.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">OUR SCHMITTIAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW<br /></font></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><i>Adrian Vermeule</i></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<p></p>
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><b>DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW &#8211;</p>
<p>ACCESS TO COURTS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/feb09.shtml">Full</p>
<p>Text</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1">Table of</p>
<p>Contents</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">I.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Introduction</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">II.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Compensating Victims of Wrongful Detention,</p>
<p>Torture, and Abuse in the</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;U.S. War on</p>
<p>Terror</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">III.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mandatory Arbitration Clauses: Proposals for</p>
<p>Reform of Consumer-</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Defendant</p>
<p>Arbitration</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">IV.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Access to Courts and Videoconferencing in</p>
<p>Immigration Court</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Proceedings</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">V.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Political Question Doctrine, Executive</p>
<p>Deference, and Foreign</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Relations</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">VI.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Aesthetic Injuries, Animal Rights, and</p>
<p>Anthropomorphism</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>NOTE</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/feb09.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Prediction Markets and Law: A Skeptical Account</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT CASES</p>
<p></b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/feb09.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">En Banc Third Circuit Strikes Down Federal Statute Prohibiting the Interstate</p>
<p>Sale of Depictions of Animal Cruelty. &#8212; <i>United States v. Stevens</i>, 533 F.3d</p>
<p>218 (3d Cir. 2008) (en banc).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/feb09.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Accepts Loss of a Chance in Medical</p>
<p>Malpractice Suits. &#8212; <i>Matsuyama v. Birnbaum</i>, 890 N.E.2d 819 (Mass.</p>
<p>2008).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/feb09.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Tenth Circuit Strikes Down Colorado Law Exempting</p>
<p>&#8220;Pervasively Sectarian&#8221; Religious Colleges from State Scholarship Program. &#8212;</p>
<p><i>Colorado Christian University v. Weaver</i>, 534 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir.</p>
<p>2008).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/feb09.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Supreme Court of Michigan Holds that Public Employers May Not Provide</p>
<p>Healthcare Benefits to Same-Sex Domestic Partners of Employees. &#8212; <i>National Pride</p>
<p>at Work, Inc. v. Governor of Michigan</i>, 748 N.W.2d 524 (Mich. 2008).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT LEGISLATION</p>
<p></b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/feb09.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Congress Grants Telecommunications Companies Retroactive</p>
<p>Immunity from Civil Suits for Complying with NSA Terrorist Surveillance Program. &#8212;</p>
<p>FISA Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-261, 122 Stat. 2436.</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/feb09/feb09.shtml">Full</p>
<p>Text</a></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/02/harvard_law_rev_13.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 122:3 (January 2009)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/harvard_law_rev_12.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/harvard_law_rev_12.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:53:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2009/01/harvard-law-review-1223-january-2009.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Vol. 122 · January 2009 · No. 3</p>




ARTICLE


 </p>
<p>WHOSE EYES ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE?
SCOTT V. HARRIS AND THE PERILS OF
COGNITIVE ILLIBERALISM
 
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Dan M. Kahan,
David A. Hoffman,
and Donald Braman


BOOK REVIEW



</p>
<p>BEYOND SOVEREIGNTY AND UNIFORMITY:
THE CHALLENGES FOR EQUAL CITIZENSHIP
IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
 
</p>
<p>Rogers M. Smith








NOTES


Touch and Concern, the Restatement (Third)
of Property: Servitudes, and a Proposal


The Eighth Amendment, Proportionality,
and the Changing Meaning of “Punishments”


RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


D.C. Circuit Holds that EPA Cannot Prevent State and Local Authorities from Supplementing Inadequate Emissions Monitoring Requirements in the Absence of EPA Regulation. — Sierra Club v. EPA, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008).


Federal Court Dismisses Juror Refusing To Apply Law As Instructed. — United States v. Luisi, 568 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Mass. 2008).


New York Court of Appeals [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>--></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml">Vol. 122 · January 2009 · No. 3</a></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 97%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>ARTICLE</strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/kahan_hoffman_braman.shtml"><span> </span></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/kahan_hoffman_braman.shtml"><span>WHOSE EYES ARE YOU GOING TO BELIEVE?<em><br />
SCOTT V. HARRIS</em> AND THE PERILS OF<br />
COGNITIVE ILLIBERALISM</span></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Dan M. Kahan,<br />
David A. Hoffman,<br />
and Donald Braman</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>BOOK REVIEW</strong><br />
</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/smith.shtml"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/smith.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">BEYOND SOVEREIGNTY AND UNIFORMITY:<br />
THE CHALLENGES FOR EQUAL CITIZENSHIP<br />
IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY</span></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Rogers M. Smith</em></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 95%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>NOTES</strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">Touch and Concern, the Restatement (Third)<br />
of Property: Servitudes, and a Proposal</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml"><span>The Eighth Amendment, Proportionality,<br />
and the Changing Meaning of “Punishments”</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT CASES</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong></strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">D.C. Circuit Holds that EPA Cannot Prevent State and Local Authorities from Supplementing Inadequate Emissions Monitoring Requirements in the Absence of EPA Regulation. — <em>Sierra Club v. EPA</em>, 536 F.3d 673 (D.C. Cir. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">Federal Court Dismisses Juror Refusing To Apply Law As Instructed. — <em>United States v. Luisi</em>, 568 F. Supp. 2d 106 (D. Mass. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="&lt;/p"><span style="font-family: times;">New York Court of Appeals Holds that Insurers May Be Liable for Consequential Damages. — <em>Bi-Economy Market, Inc. v. Harleysville Insurance Co.,</em> 886 N.E.2d 127 (N.Y. 2008).</span><span> </span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a></p>
<p><a href="&lt;/p"><span>Seventh Circuit Holds that State Law Disproportionately Burdening Out-of-State Businesses Has Only Incidental Effects on Interstate Commerce. — <em>Baude v. Heath</em>, 538 F.3d 608 (7th Cir. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml"><span>Ninth Circuit Holds that Single Sale on eBay Does Not Provide Sufficient Minimum Contacts with Buyer&#8217;s State. —<em> Boschetto v. Hansing</em>, 539 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">Eighth Circuit Holds that a Cotenant&#8217;s Consent at the Time of the Search Can Overrule a Suspect&#8217;s Recent Objection. — <em>United States v. Hudspeth</em>, 518 F.3d 954 (8th Cir. 2008) (en banc).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">Colorado Supreme Court Holds Defendants Liable for Full Profits from the Sale of a Home by Applying Unjust Enrichment Theory to an Informal Agreement Between Close Relatives. — <em>Lewis v. Lewis</em>, 189 P.3d 1134 (Colo. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT LEGISLATION</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong></strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">Congress Restricts Use of Genetic Information by Insurers and Employers. — Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-233, 122 Stat. 881 (to be codified in scattered sections of 26, 29, and 42 U.S.C.).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml">Full</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/jan09/jan09.shtml">Text</a></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2009/01/harvard_law_rev_12.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 122:2 (December 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/12/harvard_law_rev_5.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/12/harvard_law_rev_5.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Dec 2008 19:50:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/12/harvard-law-review-1222-december-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Vol. 122 · December 2008 · No. 2</p>




ARTICLES



 </p>
<p>CAUSAL INFERENCE IN
CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION
 
</p>
<p>D. James Greiner


 </p>
<p>TREATIES AS LAW OF THE LAND:
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND THE
JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF TREATIES
 
</p>
<p>Carlos Manuel Vázquez


BOOK REVIEW



</p>
<p>GOVERNANCE IN THE RUINS
 
</p>
<p>David A. Skeel, Jr.








NOTES


Defending Federalism: Realizing Publius&#8217;s Vision


Judicial Review of Congressional Factfinding


RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


California Supreme Court Holds that Free Exercise of Religion Does Not Give
Fertility Doctors Right To Deny Treatment to Lesbians. — North Coast
Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego County Superior
Court, 189 P.3d 959 (Cal. 2008).


Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds that Threats by Defendants Cannot Disqualify
Prosecutors. — State v. McManus, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008).


District Court Rejects Challenge to Reauthorized Section Five.
— Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Mukasey, No. 06-1384,
2008 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>--></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 122 · December 2008 · No. 2</a></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 97%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>ARTICLES</strong><br />
</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/greiner.shtml"><span> </span></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/greiner.shtml"><span>CAUSAL INFERENCE IN<br />
CIVIL RIGHTS LITIGATION</span></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><em>D. James Greiner</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/vazquez.shtml"><span> </span></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/vazquez.shtml"><span>TREATIES AS LAW OF THE LAND:<br />
THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE AND </span><span>THE<br />
JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF TREATIES</span></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Carlos Manuel Vázquez</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>BOOK REVIEW</strong><br />
</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/skeel.shtml"></a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/skeel.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">GOVERNANCE IN THE RUINS</span></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><em>David A. Skeel, Jr.</em></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 95%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>NOTES</strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">Defending Federalism: Realizing Publius&#8217;s Vision</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml"><span>Judicial Review of Congressional Factfinding</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT CASES</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong></strong></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">California Supreme Court Holds that Free Exercise of Religion Does Not Give<br />
Fertility Doctors Right To Deny Treatment to Lesbians. —<em> North Coast<br />
Women’s Care Medical Group, Inc. v. San Diego County Superior<br />
Court</em>, 189 P.3d 959 (Cal. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">Rhode Island Supreme Court Holds that Threats by Defendants Cannot Disqualify<br />
Prosecutors. — <em>State v. McManus</em>, 941 A.2d 222 (R.I. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">District Court Rejects Challenge to Reauthorized Section Five.<br />
— <em>Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. One v. Mukasey</em>, No. 06-1384,<br />
2008 WL 4097645 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml"><span>Ninth Circuit Holds that School&#8217;s Strip Search of a Student<br />
Violated the Fourth Amendment Under Clearly Established Law.<br />
— <em>Redding v. Safford Unified School District No. 1</em>, 531 F.3d 1071<br />
(9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml"><span>Second Circuit Holds that Government May Withhold Classified<br />
Information Unless Information Would Be &#8220;Relevant and Helpful&#8221;<br />
to Defense. —<em> United States v. Aref</em>, 533 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href="&lt;/p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;">Western District of Texas Upholds Gun Regulation Under Intermediate Scrutiny in<br />
</span><span style="font-family: times;">Post-<em>Heller</em> Decision. — <em>United States v. Bledsoe</em>, No. SA-08-CR-13(2),<br />
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60522 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 8, 2008).</span></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml">Full</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/dec08/dec08.shtml">Text</a></span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/12/harvard_law_rev_5.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 122:1 (November 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/harvard_law_rev_10.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/harvard_law_rev_10.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 21 Nov 2008 18:57:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/11/harvard-law-review-1221-november-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"></p>
<p style="text-align: center;">Vol. 122 · November 2008 · No. 1</p>




THE</p>
<p>SUPREME COURT, 2007 TERM
 
</p>
<p> 


 FOREWORD:</p>
<p>DEMOSPRUDENCE</p>
<p>THROUGH DISSENT
 Lani Guinier


 COMMENTS:</p>
<p> </p>
<p>DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER:
THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS


 HELLER, HLR, AND
HOLISTIC LEGAL REASONING
 Akhil Reed Amar


 DEAD OR ALIVE: ORIGINALISM AS
POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM IN HELLER
 Reva B. Siegel


 SECOND AMENDMENT MINIMALISM:
HELLER AS GRISWOLD
 Cass R. Sunstein


LEADING CASES:</p>

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Commerce Clause  Dormant Commerce Clause — State Taxation of Municipal Bonds:
Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis
Criminal Law and Procedure

Eighth Amendment — Death Penalty — Lethal
Injection Drug Protocol:
Baze v. Rees

Eighth Amendment — Death Penalty —
Punishment for Child Rape:
Kennedy v. Louisiana

Sixth Amendment — Attachment of Right to
Counsel:
Rothgery v. Gillespie County

Sixth Amendment — Competency Standard for
Self-Representation at Trial:
Indiana v. Edwards

Sixth Amendment — Federal Sentencing Guidelines
— Deviation [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><!--A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>--></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><img src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 122 · November 2008 · No. 1</a></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table style="width: 97%;" border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>THE</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>SUPREME COURT, 2007 TERM</strong></span></td>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"> </span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" valign="bottom"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>FOREWORD:</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/guinier.shtml">DEMOSPRUDENCE</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/guinier.shtml">THROUGH DISSENT</a></span></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="middle"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Lani Guinier</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>COMMENTS:</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.shtml"><em>DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER</em>:<br />
THE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS</a></span></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" valign="top"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/amar.shtml"><em>HELLER</em>,<em> HLR</em>, AND<br />
HOLISTIC LEGAL REASONING</a></span></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="middle"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Akhil Reed Amar</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" valign="top"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/siegel.shtml">DEAD OR ALIVE: ORIGINALISM AS<br />
POPULAR CONSTITUTIONALISM IN <em>HELLER</em></a></span></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="middle"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Reva B. Siegel</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" valign="top"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/sunstein.shtml">SECOND AMENDMENT MINIMALISM:<em><br />
HELLER</em> AS <em>GRISWOLD</em></a></span></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="middle"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Cass R. Sunstein</em></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="left" valign="top"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>LEADING CASES:</strong></span></p>
<ol type="I">
<li><span style="font-family: times;">CONSTITUTIONAL LAW</span>
<ol type="A">
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Commerce Clause </span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Dormant Commerce Clause — State Taxation of Municipal Bonds</em>:</span></a><a href="&lt;/p"><br />
Department of Revenue of Kentucky v. Davis</a></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Criminal Law and Procedure</span>
<ol type="1">
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Eighth Amendment — Death Penalty — Lethal</em></span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Injection Drug Protocol</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Baze v. Rees<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Eighth Amendment — Death Penalty —</em></span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Punishment for Child Rape</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Kennedy v. Louisiana<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Sixth Amendment — Attachment of Right to</em></span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Counsel</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Rothgery v. Gillespie County<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Sixth Amendment — Competency Standard for</em></span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Self-Representation at Trial</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"><br />
</a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml">Indiana v. Edwards</a></span><a href="&lt;/p"><br />
</a></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Sixth Amendment — Federal Sentencing Guidelines</em></span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
— Deviation Based on Policy Disagreements</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Kimbrough v. United States<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Sixth Amendment — Witness Confrontation —</em></span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Forfeiture by Wrongdoing Doctrine</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"><br />
</a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml">Giles. v. California<br />
</a></span></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Equal Protection</span>
<ol type="1">
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Jury Selection</em> — Batson <em>Challenges</em>: </span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"><br />
</a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml">Snyder v. Louisiana</p>
<p></a></span><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span></a></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Photo Identification Requirement for In-Person</em></span><span style="font-family: times;"><em> Voting</em></span><span style="font-family: times;">:<br />
<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml">Crawford v. Marion County Election Board</a></p>
<p></span></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Freedom of Association</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
State Primary Regulation</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"><br />
New York State Board of Elections v. López Torres</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Freedom of Speech and Expression</span>
<ol type="1">
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Campaign Finance Regulation</em>: </span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;p"><br />
Davis v.</a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml">FEC</a><br />
</span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Overbreadth Doctrine</em>: <a href="&lt;p"><br />
United</a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;p"></a><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"> States v. Williams</a><br />
</span></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Suspension Clause</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Extraterritorial Reach of Writ of Habeas Corpus</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Boumediene v. Bush<br />
</a></span></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE</span>
<ol type="A">
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Federal Preemption of State Law</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Preemption of State Common Law Claims</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Riegel v. Medtronic, Inc.<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Habeas Corpus</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Jurisdiction over Americans Held Overseas</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Munaf v. Geren<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">State Postconviction Proceedings</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Retroactive Application of New Rules</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Danforth v. Minnesota<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Status of International Law</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Self-Execution of Treaties</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Medellín v. Texas<br />
</a></span></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS</span>
<ol type="A">
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Age Discrimination in Employment Act</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Retaliation</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Gómez-Pérez v. Potter<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Federal Magistrates Act</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Voir Dire Jurisdiction</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Gonzalez v. United States<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Immigration and Nationality Act</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Voluntary Departure</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Dada v. Mukasey<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Money Laundering</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Rule of Lenity</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
United States v. Santos<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Securities Exchange Act of 1934</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Scope of Secondary Actor Liability</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.<br />
</a></span></li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">Voting Rights Act of 1965</span><span style="font-family: times;"><em><br />
Need for Preclearance</em>:</span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
Riley v. Kennedy<br />
</a></span></li>
</ol>
</li>
<li><span style="font-family: times;">ORIGINAL JURISDICTION</span>
<div style="margin-left: 2em">
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><em>Controversy Between States — Border Dispute</em>:<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml"><br />
New Jersey v. Delaware</a></span></div>
</li>
</ol>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"> </a></span><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="&lt;/p"><strong>THE STATISTICS</strong></a><br />
</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><span style="font-family: times;"><strong>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</strong></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml">Full</a></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: times;"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/122/nov08/nov08.shtml">Text</a></span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="top"><span style="font-family: times;"> </span><span style="font-family: times;"><br />
</span></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/11/harvard_law_rev_10.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 121:8 (June 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/harvard_law_rev_9.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/harvard_law_rev_9.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/06/harvard-law-review-1218-june-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>

<p></p>
<p>Vol. 121 · June 2008 · No. 8</p>

</p>

ARTICLE</p>
<p>


UNEQUAL JUSTICE
</p>
<p>William J. Stuntz


</p>
<p>BOOK REVIEW</p>
<p>


THE CONSULTANTS&#8217; REPUBLIC
</p>
<p>Douglas A. Kysar




</p>

</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p>


The Immunity-Conferring Power of the Office of Legal Counsel


The Alien Tort Statute, Forum Shopping, and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Norm


</p>
<p>Rule Porousness and the Design of Legal Directives


</p>
<p>&#8220;Trading Action for Access&#8221;: The Myth of Meritocracyand the Failure To Remedy Structural Discrimination


</p>
<p>Cross-Jurisdictional Forum Non Conveniens Preclusion


</p>
<p>Shifting the FISA Paradigm: Protecting Civil Libertiesby Eliminating Ex Ante Judicial Approval


</p>
<p>RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


</p>
<p>Seventh Circuit Holds that RICO Conspiracy Charges Can Proceed to Trial Despite Unresolved Double Jeopardy Claims. &#8212; United States v. Calabrese, 490 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2007).


</p>
<p>Third Circuit Holds that Government Appeals of Alleged Plea Agreement Breaches by Defendants Are Reviewed De [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<style type="text/css">
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
</style>
<p><center><img alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 121 · June 2008 · No. 8</a></center></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="97%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" ><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><br /><b>ARTICLE</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/stuntz.shtml"><font face=</p>
<p>"times" size="-1">UNEQUAL JUSTICE</font></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom" ><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"></p>
<p><i>William J. Stuntz</i></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" ><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>BOOK REVIEW</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" ><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/kysar.shtml"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">THE CONSULTANTS&#8217; REPUBLIC</font></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"></p>
<p><i>Douglas A. Kysar</i></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>NOTES</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" ><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">The Immunity-Conferring Power of the Office of Legal Counsel</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" ><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">The Alien Tort Statute, Forum Shopping,<br /> and the Exhaustion of Local Remedies Norm</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Rule Porousness and the Design of Legal Directives</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" ><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">&#8220;Trading Action for Access&#8221;: The Myth of Meritocracy<br />and the Failure To Remedy Structural Discrimination</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" ><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Cross-Jurisdictional Forum Non Conveniens Preclusion</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" ><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Shifting the FISA Paradigm: Protecting Civil Liberties<br />by Eliminating Ex Ante Judicial Approval</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT CASES</p>
<p></b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Seventh Circuit Holds that RICO Conspiracy Charges Can Proceed to Trial Despite Unresolved Double Jeopardy Claims. &#8212; <i>United States v. Calabrese</i>, 490 F.3d 575 (7th Cir. 2007).</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Third Circuit Holds that Government Appeals of Alleged Plea Agreement Breaches by Defendants Are Reviewed De Novo. &#8212; <i>United States v. Williams</i>, 510 F.3d 416 (3d Cir. 2007).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Seventh Circuit Holds that a Codefendant&#8217;s Repeated and Violent Outbursts, Coupled with Intimidation from the Gallery, Denied Defendant a Fair Trial. &#8212; <i>United States v.</p>
<p>Mannie</i>, 509 F.3d 851 (7th Cir. 2007).</p>
<p></font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Federal District Court Denies § 230 Immunity to Website that Solicits Illicit Content. &#8212; <i>FTC v. Accusearch, Inc.</i>, No. 06-CV-105, 2007 WL 4356786 (D. Wyo. Sept. 28, 2007).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1"> General Court of Qatif Sentences Gang-Rape Victim to Prison and Lashings for Violating &#8220;Illegal Mingling&#8221; Law.</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT PROPOSED LEGISLATION</p>
<p></b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Congress Considers Bill To Invalidate Pre-Dispute Arbitration Clauses for Consumers, Employees, and Franchisees. &#8212; Arbitration Fairness Act 2007, S. 1782, 110th Cong. (2007).</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/june08/june08.shtml">Full</p>
<p>Text</a></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/06/harvard_law_rev_9.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 121:6 (April 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/harvard_law_rev_4.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/harvard_law_rev_4.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:30:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/04/harvard-law-review-1216-april-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>

<p></p>
<p>Vol. 121 · April 2008 · No. 6</p>

</p>

ARTICLE</p>
<p>


LAND ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS
</p>
<p>Michael Heller</p>
<p>and Rick Hills


</p>
<p>BOOK REVIEW</p>
<p>


THE END OF THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATE: A REVIEW ESSAY
</p>
<p>Robert Howse




</p>

</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p>


Mechanisms of Secrecy


Regulating Eugenics


</p>
<p>Leegin&#8217;s Unexplored &#8220;Change in Circumstance&#8221;: The</p>
<p>Internet and Resale Price Maintenance


</p>
<p>Counterinsurgency and Constitutional Design


</p>
<p>RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


</p>
<p>Washington Supreme Court Declines To Apply Professional</p>
<p>Rescue Doctrine in Suit by Policeman Against Fellow Officer. &#8212; Beaupre v. Pierce</p>
<p>County, 166 P.3d 712 (Wash. 2007).


</p>
<p>En Banc Ninth Circuit Holds that RICO Enterprise Need Not</p>
<p>Have Any Particular Organizational Structure. &#8212; Odom v. Microsoft Corp.,</p>
<p>486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 464</p>
<p>(2007).


Seventh Circuit Holds that Defendant&#8217;s Waiver of the Right To Testify Was Valid</p>
<p>Despite District Court&#8217;s Failure To Engage in an On-the-Record [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<style type="text/css">
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
</style>
<p><center><img alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 121 · April 2008 · No. 6</a></center></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="97%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><b>ARTICLE</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/heller_hills.shtml"><font face=</p>
<p>"times" size="-1">LAND ASSEMBLY DISTRICTS<br /></font></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"></p>
<p><i>Michael Heller</p>
<p>and Rick Hills</i></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>BOOK REVIEW</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/howse.shtml"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">THE END OF THE GLOBALIZATION DEBATE: <br />A REVIEW ESSAY<br /></font></a></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"></p>
<p><i>Robert Howse</i></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>NOTES</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Mechanisms of Secrecy</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Regulating Eugenics</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1"><i>Leegin</i>&#8217;s Unexplored &#8220;Change in Circumstance&#8221;:<br /> The</p>
<p>Internet and Resale Price Maintenance</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Counterinsurgency and Constitutional Design</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT CASES</p>
<p></b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">Washington Supreme Court Declines To Apply Professional</p>
<p>Rescue Doctrine in Suit by Policeman Against Fellow Officer. &#8212; <i>Beaupre v. Pierce</p>
<p>County</i>, 166 P.3d 712 (Wash. 2007).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">En Banc Ninth Circuit Holds that RICO Enterprise Need Not</p>
<p>Have Any Particular Organizational Structure. &#8212; <i>Odom v. Microsoft Corp</i>.,</p>
<p>486 F.3d 541 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc), <i>cert. denied</i>, 128 S. Ct. 464</p>
<p>(2007).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Seventh Circuit Holds that Defendant&#8217;s Waiver of the Right To Testify Was Valid</p>
<p>Despite District Court&#8217;s Failure To Engage in an On-the-Record Colloquy Regarding the</p>
<p>Decision. &#8212; <i>United States v. Stark</i>, 507 F.3d 512 (7th Cir.</p>
<p>2007).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Ninth Circuit Considers Community&#8217;s Racial Tension with Police in Finding</p>
<p>Illegal Seizure and Lack of Voluntary Consent. &#8212; United States v. Washington, 490</p>
<p>F.3d 765 (9th Cir. 2007).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"><font face="times"</p>
<p>size="-1">Ninth Circuit Holds that &#167; 1983 Does Not Provide a Right of Action for</p>
<p>Violations of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. &#8212; <i>Cornejo v. County</p>
<p>of San Diego</i>, 504 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2007), <i>reh&#8217;g and reh&#8217;g en banc</p>
<p>denied</i>, No. 05-56202 (9th Cir. Feb. 4, 2008).</font></a></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/april08/april08.shtml"></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1">En Banc D.C. Circuit Rejects Fundamental Right to</p>
<p>Experimental Medications. &#8212; <i>Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental</p>
<p>Drugs v. von Eschenbach</i>, 495 F.3d 695 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (en banc), <i>cert.</p>
<p>denied</i>, 128 S. Ct. 1069 (2008).</font></a></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/harvard_law_rev_4.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/harvard_law_review_forum_121_2008.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/harvard_law_review_forum_121_2008.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 21:32:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/04/harvard-law-review-forum-121-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2008)</p>
<p> Governing Health</p>
<p>Jennifer Prah Ruger</p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><center><img alt="Harvard-forum2.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Harvard-forum2.jpg" width="408" height="158" /></center></p>
<p></p>
<p>Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2008)</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/forum/issues/120/may07/ruger.shtml" STYLE="TEXT-DECORATION: NONE"><b>Governing Health</a></p>
<p><i>Jennifer Prah Ruger</i></b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/04/harvard_law_review_forum_121_2008.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 121:5 (March 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/harvard_law_rev_7.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/harvard_law_rev_7.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 25 Mar 2008 20:56:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/03/harvard-law-review-1215-march-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>

<p></p>
<p>Vol. 121 · March 2008 · No. 5</p>

</p>

ARTICLE</p>
<p>


VALUING LAWS AS LOCAL AMENITIES
Anup Malani


ESSAY</p>
<p>


THE ASCENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND THE DEMISE OF MERCY
</p>
<p>Rachel E. Barkow





</p>

</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p>


</p>
<p>Public-Private Partnerships and Insurance Regulation


The Principles for User Generated Content Services: A Middle-Ground Approach to Cyber-Governance


Government Counsel and Their Obligations


</p>
<p>BOOK NOTE</p>
<p>


</p>
<p>Justice Thomas&#8217;s Inconsistent Originalism


</p>
<p>RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


</p>
<p>Eighth Circuit Holds that the First Amendment Protects Online Fantasy Baseball Providers&#8217; Use of Baseball Statistics in the Public Domain. &#8212; C.B.C. Distribution &#038; Marketing, Inc. v. Major League</p>
<p>Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007), reh’g and</p>
<p>reh’g en banc denied, Nos. 06-3357 &#038; 06-3358 (8th Cir. Nov. 26, 2007).


Eighth Circuit Holds that Benefits Plans Excluding All Contraceptives Do Not Discriminate Based on [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<style type="text/css">
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
</style>
<p><center><img alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/march08.shtml">Vol. 121 · March 2008 · No. 5</a></center></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="97%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><b>ARTICLE</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/malani.shtml">VALUING LAWS AS LOCAL AMENITIES<br /></a></font></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom" font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><i>Anup Malani</i></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><br /><b>ESSAY</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/barkow.shtml">THE ASCENT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE STATE AND THE DEMISE OF MERCY<br /></a></font></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom" font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"></p>
<p><i>Rachel E. Barkow</i></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>NOTES</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org"></p>
<p>Public-Private Partnerships and Insurance Regulation</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/march08.shtml">The Principles for User Generated Content Services: A Middle-Ground Approach to Cyber-Governance</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/march08.shtml">Government Counsel and Their Obligations</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>BOOK NOTE</p>
<p></b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/march08.shtml"></p>
<p>Justice Thomas&#8217;s Inconsistent Originalism</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT CASES</p>
<p></b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/march08.shtml"></p>
<p>Eighth Circuit Holds that the First Amendment Protects Online Fantasy Baseball Providers&#8217; Use of Baseball Statistics in the Public Domain. &#8212; <i>C.B.C. Distribution &#038; Marketing, Inc. v. Major League</p>
<p>Baseball Advanced Media, L.P.</i>, 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007), <i>reh’g and</p>
<p>reh’g en banc denied</i>, Nos. 06-3357 &#038; 06-3358 (8th Cir. Nov. 26, 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/march08.shtml">Eighth Circuit Holds that Benefits Plans Excluding All Contraceptives Do Not Discriminate Based on Sex. &#8212; <i>In re Union Pacific Railroad</p>
<p>Employment Practices Litigation</i>, 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007),</p>
<p><i>reh’g and reh’g en banc denied</i>, No. 06-1706 (8th Cir. May 23, 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left" font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/march08.shtml">Second Circuit Upholds Perpetual Anti-Bootlegging Protection Against Copyright Clause Challenge. &#8212; <i>United States v.</p>
<p>Martignon</i>, 492 F.3d 140 (2d Cir. 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center" font face="times" size="-1">
<p><b>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/march08/march08.shtml">Full</p>
<p>Text</a></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/03/harvard_law_rev_7.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 121:4 (February 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/02/harvard_law_rev_6.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/02/harvard_law_rev_6.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/02/harvard-law-review-1214-february-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>

<p></p>
<p>Vol. 121 · February 2008 · No. 4</p>

</p>

ARTICLE</p>
<p>


THE COMMANDER</p>
<p>IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB &#8212; A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY
</p>
<p></p>
<p>David J. Barron and Martin S. Lederman




<p></p>
</p>

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW &#8211;</p>
<p>THE LAW OF MENTAL ILLNESS</p>
<p>Full</p>
<p>Text


Table of</p>
<p>Contents


I.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Introduction


II.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Sell v. United States: Forcibly Medicating the Mentally Ill To Stand</p>
<p>Trial


III.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Booker, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,</p>
<p>and Violent Mentally Ill</p>
<p>&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Offenders


IV.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The Impact of the Prison Litigation Reform Act on</p>
<p>Correctional Mental</p>
<p>&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; Health</p>
<p>Litigation


V.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;The Supreme Court&#8217;s Pursuit of Procedural</p>
<p>Maxima over Substantive</p>
<p>&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Minima in Mental Capacity</p>
<p>Determinations


VI.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Mental Health Courts and the Trend Toward a</p>
<p>Rehabilitative Justice</p>
<p>&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160; System


VII.&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Voting Rights and the Mentally Incapacitated




</p>

</p>
<p>NOTES</p>
<p>


</p>
<p>Fixing Medical Malpractice Through Health Insurer Enterprise Liability


The</p>
<p>Charming Betsy Canon, Separation of Powers, and Customary International</p>
<p>Law


</p>
<p>BOOK NOTE</p>
<p>


</p>
<p>Forced Sex in the Workplace as Rape: Applying Sex Equality to Criminal</p>
<p>Remedies


</p>
<p>RECENT CASES</p>
<p>


Ninth</p>
<p>Circuit Holds [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<style type="text/css">
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
</style>
<p><center><img alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml">Vol. 121 · February 2008 · No. 4</a></center></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="97%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><b>ARTICLE</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/barron_lederman2.shtml">THE COMMANDER</p>
<p>IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB &#8212; A CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY<br /></a></font></td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"></p>
<p></p>
<p><i>David J. Barron and Martin S. Lederman</i></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<p></p>
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1"><b>DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW &#8211;</p>
<p>THE LAW OF MENTAL ILLNESS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml">Full</p>
<p>Text</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1">Table of</p>
<p>Contents</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">I.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Introduction</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">II.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Sell v. United States</i>: Forcibly Medicating the Mentally Ill To Stand</p>
<p>Trial</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">III.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<i>Booker</i>, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,</p>
<p>and Violent Mentally Ill</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Offenders</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">IV.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Impact of the Prison Litigation Reform Act on</p>
<p>Correctional Mental</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Health</p>
<p>Litigation</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">V.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;The Supreme Court&#8217;s Pursuit of Procedural</p>
<p>Maxima over Substantive</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Minima in Mental Capacity</p>
<p>Determinations</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">VI.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Mental Health Courts and the Trend Toward a</p>
<p>Rehabilitative Justice</p>
<p>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; System</font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size=</p>
<p>"-1">VII.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Voting Rights and the Mentally Incapacitated</font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style=</p>
<p>"margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto"></p>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>NOTES</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml"></p>
<p>Fixing Medical Malpractice Through Health Insurer Enterprise Liability</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml">The</p>
<p><i>Charming Betsy</i> Canon, Separation of Powers, and Customary International</p>
<p>Law</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>BOOK NOTE</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml"></p>
<p>Forced Sex in the Workplace as Rape: Applying Sex Equality to Criminal</p>
<p>Remedies</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT CASES</p>
<p></b></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml">Ninth</p>
<p>Circuit Holds that Motive Is Not an Element of Willful Blindness &#8212; <i>United States</p>
<p>v. Heredia</i>, 483 F.3d 913 (9th Cir.) (en banc), <i>cert. denied</i>, 76 U.S.L.W. 3303</p>
<p>(U.S. Dec. 11, 2007) (No. 07-5762).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml">California</p>
<p>Supreme Court Extends Assumption of Risk to Noncontact Sports &#8212; <i>Shin v. Ahn</i>,</p>
<p>165 P.3d 581 (Cal. 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href=</p>
<p>"http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml">Ninth</p>
<p>Circuit Upholds Issuance of Warrant Based on E-mail Recipient List &#8212; <i>United</p>
<p>States v. Kelley</i>, 482 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2" align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/feb08/feb08.shtml">Full</p>
<p>Text</a></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<p></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/02/harvard_law_rev_6.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 121:3 (January 2008)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/01/harvard_law_rev_3.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/01/harvard_law_rev_3.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:45:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2008/01/harvard-law-review-1213-january-2008.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>

<p></p>
<p>Vol. 121 · January 2008 · No. 3</p>



ARTICLE</p>



THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING</p>
<p></p>

</p>
<p>David J. Barron and Martin S. Lederman






ESSAY

(UN)COVERING IDENTITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS AND POVERTY LAW</p>
<p></p>

Anthony V. Alfieri






NOTES</p>
<p>


Taxing Private Equity Carried Interest Using an Incentive Stock Option Analogy

Defining the Reach of Heck v. Humphrey: Should the Favorable Termination Rule Apply to Individuals Who Lack Access to Habeas Corpus?


RECENT CASES</p>
<p>

Fifth Circuit Holds that Plaintiffs Must Prove Loss Causation Before Being Certified as a Class. — Oscar Private</p>
<p>Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc., 487 F.3d 261 (5th Cir.</p>
<p>2007).

D.C.</p>
<p>Circuit Declines To Overturn Lower Court&#8217;s Finding of Justiciability in Tort Suit Brought by Indonesian Villagers. — Doe [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<style type="text/css">
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
</style>
<p><center><img alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 121 · January 2008 · No. 3</a></center></p>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"><b>ARTICLE</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/barron_lederman.shtml">THE COMMANDER IN CHIEF AT THE LOWEST EBB — FRAMING THE PROBLEM, DOCTRINE, AND ORIGINAL UNDERSTANDING</p>
<p></a--></p>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><i>David J. Barron and Martin S. Lederman</i></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><b>ESSAY</b></td>
</tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/alfieri.shtml">(UN)COVERING IDENTITY IN CIVIL RIGHTS AND POVERTY LAW</p>
<p></a--></p>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><i>Anthony V. Alfieri</i></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
<div style="text-align: center">
<table width="95%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="5" border="0" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto">
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align=center><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><b>NOTES</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">Taxing Private Equity Carried Interest Using an Incentive Stock Option Analogy</a></td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">Defining the Reach of <i>Heck v. Humphrey</i>: Should the Favorable Termination Rule Apply to Individuals Who Lack Access to Habeas Corpus?</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align=center><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><b>RECENT CASES</b></font></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">Fifth Circuit Holds that Plaintiffs Must Prove Loss Causation Before Being Certified as a Class. — <i>Oscar Private</p>
<p>Equity Investments v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc.</i>, 487 F.3d 261 (5th Cir.</p>
<p>2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">D.C.</p>
<p>Circuit Declines To Overturn Lower Court&#8217;s Finding of Justiciability in Tort Suit Brought by Indonesian Villagers. — <i>Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp.</i>, 473 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir.</p>
<p>2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">New York Court of Appeals Holds that Shooting Victim&#8217;s Statements to Responding Police Officer Were Not Testimonial. —</p>
<p><i>People v. Nieves-Andino</i>, 872 N.E.2d 1188 (N.Y. 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">D.C.</p>
<p>Circuit Holds that FBI Search of Congressional Office Violated Speech or Debate Clause. — <i>United States v.</p>
<p>Rayburn House Office Building</i>, 497 F.3d 654 (D.C. Cir. 2007), <i>reh’g en</p>
<p>banc denied</i>, No. 06-3015, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 26295 (D.C. Cir.</p>
<p>Nov. 9, 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">Sixth Circuit Denies Standing To Challenge Terrorist Surveillance Program. — <i>ACLU v. NSA</i>, 493 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">Texas District Court Extends § 230 Immunity to Social Networking Sites. — <i>Doe v. MySpace, Inc.</i>, 474 F. Supp. 2d 843 (W.D.</p>
<p>Tex. 2007).</a></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/jan08/jan08.shtml">Full Text</a></font></td>
</tr>
</table>
</div>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2008/01/harvard_law_rev_3.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 121:2 (December 2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/harvard_law_rev_2.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/harvard_law_rev_2.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:41:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/12/harvard-law-review-1212-december-2007.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>

<p></p>
<p>Vol. 121 · December 2007 · No. 2</p>

IN MEMORIAM: CLARK BYSE</p>



Justice Stephen G. Breyer&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Elena Kagan&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;&#160;Andrew L. Kaufman


Todd D. Rakoff&#160;&#160;&#160; Peter L. Strauss &#160;&#160;&#160;Richard K. Willard</p>



ARTICLES</p>



EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND INHERITANCE TAXATION</p>
<p></p>

Anne L. Alstott  

TIMING RULES AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS</p>
<p></p>

</p>
<p>Jacob&#160;E.&#160;Gersen&#160;and Eric A. Posner


NOTES</p>
<p>


The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States</p>


Oversight and Insight:Legislative Review of Agenciesand Lessons from the States</p>



RECENT CASES</p>
<p>

North Carolina Supreme Court Finds No Jurisdiction over New York Trust. — Skinner v. Preferred Credit, 638 S.E.2d 203</p>
<p>(N.C. 2006), reh’g denied, 643 S.E.2d 591 (N.C. 2007).</p>


New Jersey Supreme Court Holds that Restrictions in Common Interest Community Do Not Violate the State&#8217;s Constitution. — Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Ass’n, 929 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<style type="text/css">
<p>A:link {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:visited {</p>
<p>color: 993333;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:active {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: none;</p>
<p>}</p>
<p>A:hover {</p>
<p>color: blue;</p>
<p>text-decoration: underline;</p>
<p>}</p>
</style>
<p><center><img alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org">Vol. 121 · December 2007 · No. 2</a></center></p>
<table>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"><strong><br /><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/index.shtml">IN MEMORIAM: CLARK BYSE</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1">Justice Stephen G. Breyer&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Elena Kagan&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Andrew L. Kaufman<br ></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1">Todd D. Rakoff&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Peter L. Strauss &nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Richard K. Willard</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><b>ARTICLES</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/alstott.shtml">EQUAL OPPORTUNITY AND INHERITANCE TAXATION</p>
<p></a--></p>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="middle"><font face="times" size="-1"><i>Anne L. Alstott  </i></td>
</tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/gersen_posner.shtml">TIMING RULES AND LEGAL INSTITUTIONS</p>
<p></a--></p>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="middle"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><i>Jacob&nbsp;E.&nbsp;Gersen&nbsp;and Eric A. Posner</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><b>NOTES</b></p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">The Case for Compulsory Voting in the United States</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">Oversight and Insight:<br />Legislative Review of Agencies<br />and Lessons from the States</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align=center><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><b>RECENT CASES</p>
<p></font></td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">North Carolina Supreme Court Finds No Jurisdiction over New York Trust. — <i>Skinner v. Preferred Credit</i>, 638 S.E.2d 203</p>
<p>(N.C. 2006), <i>reh’g denied</i>, 643 S.E.2d 591 (N.C. 2007).</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">New Jersey Supreme Court Holds that Restrictions in Common Interest Community Do Not Violate the State&#8217;s Constitution. — <i>Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners’ Ass’n</i>, 929 A.2d 1060 (N.J. 2007).</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">Ninth Circuit Removes Bar on Admission of a Defendant&#8217;s Reading Material To Show Intent To Solicit a Minor. — <i>United States v. Curtin</i>, 489 F.3d 935 (9th Cir. 2007) (en banc).</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">Tenth Circuit Invalidates Oklahoma Statute Barring Recognition of Out-of-State Adoptions by Same-Sex Couples. — <i>Finstuen v. Crutcher</i>, 496 F.3d 1139 (10th Cir. 2007).</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">Ninth Circuit Holds that 18 U.S.C. § 924(C)(1)(A) Defines a Single Firearm Offense. — <i>United States v. Arreola</i>, 446 F.3d 926 (9th Cir.), <i>superseded on denial of reh’g and reh’g en banc</i>, 467 F.3d 1153 (9th Cir. 2006), <i>cert. denied</i>, 127 S. Ct. 3002 (2007).</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<td width="85%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">Texas Supreme Court Holds that Trial Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction over Professional Negligence Claim Against Professional Counselor/Church Pastor. — <i>Westbrook v. Penley</i>, 231 S.W.3d 389 (Tex. 2007).</a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 ><font face="times" size="-1"><center></p>
<p><b>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/dec07/dec07.shtml">Full Text</a></p>
<p></center></td>
</tr>
</table>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/harvard_law_rev_2.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/harvard_law_rev_1.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/harvard_law_rev_1.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 08:25:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/12/harvard-law-review-forum-121-2007.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2007)</p>
<p> Substitution Strategies</p>
<p>Jacob E. Gersen </p>
<p></p>
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="Harvard-forum2.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/Harvard-forum2.jpg" width="408" height="158" /></p>
<p></p>
<p>Harvard Law Review Forum, 121 (2007)</p>
<p> <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/forum/issues/120/dec06/gersen.shtml" STYLE="TEXT-DECORATION: NONE"><b>Substitution Strategies</a></p>
<p><i>Jacob E. Gersen </i></p>
<p></b></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/12/harvard_law_rev_1.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Harvard Law Review, 121:1 (November 2007)</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/harvard_law_rev.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/harvard_law_rev.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Nov 2007 20:58:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Harvard Law Review</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/harvard-law-review-1211-november-2007.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[
<p></p>
<p></p>
<p>Vol. 121&#160;&#183;&#160;November 2007&#160;&#183;&#160;No. 1</p>
<p></p>


THE SUPREME COURT, 2006 TERM
&#160;&#160;


</p>
<p>FOREWORD:</p>
<p>CONSTITUTIONS AND CAPABILITIES:&#8220;PERCEPTION&#8221; AGAINST LOFTY FORMALISM</p>

</p>
<p>Martha C. Nussbaum


COMMENT:</p>
<p>PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I:VOLUNTARY RACIAL INTEGRATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS</p>


JUSTICE KENNEDY AND THE DOMAINS OF EQUAL PROTECTION</p>

Heather K. Gerken

THE SUPREME COURT AND VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION</p>

James E. Ryan

THE SEATTLE AND LOUISVILLE SCHOOL CASES: THERE IS NO OTHER WAY</p>

J. Harvie Wilkinson III


</p>
<p>LEADING CASES:</p>

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

Constitutional Remedies 
<p>Bivens Damages — Takings Clause Retaliation: Wilkie v. Robbins</p>
Criminal Law and Procedure

Eighth Amendment —  Death Penalty —  Consideration of Mitigating Evidence: Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman; Brewer v. Quarterman
Eighth Amendment —  Death Penalty —  Execution of the Presently Incompetent: Panetti v. Quarterman
Fourth Amendment — Reasonableness of Forcible Seizure: Scott v. Harris
Sixth Amendment —  Allocation of Factfinding in Sentencing: Cunningham v. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/link.css">
<p><center></p>
<p><img alt="HLR-logo2a.bmp" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/HLR-logo2a.bmp" width="443" height="119" /></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Vol. 121&nbsp;&#183;&nbsp;November 2007&nbsp;&#183;&nbsp;No. 1</a></center></p>
<p></p>
<table width="100%" align="top" style="height: 30px">
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"><b>THE SUPREME COURT, 2006 TERM</b></td>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1">&nbsp;<br />&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" valign="middle"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><strong>FOREWORD:</strong></p>
<p><a href="http://harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nussbaum.shtml">CONSTITUTIONS AND CAPABILITIES:<br />&#8220;PERCEPTION&#8221; AGAINST LOFTY FORMALISM</a></p>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right"  valign="middle"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><i>Martha C. Nussbaum</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="left" valign="top"><font face="times" size="-1"><strong>COMMENT:</strong></p>
<p><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml"><i>PARENTS INVOLVED IN COMMUNITY SCHOOLS<br /> V. SEATTLE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. I</i>:<br />VOLUNTARY RACIAL INTEGRATION IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS</font></a></p>
</td>
</tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" valign="top"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/gerken.shtml">JUSTICE KENNEDY AND THE DOMAINS OF EQUAL PROTECTION</font></a></p>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="middle"><font face="times" size="-1"><i>Heather K. Gerken</td>
</tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" valign="top"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/ryan.shtml">THE SUPREME COURT AND VOLUNTARY INTEGRATION</font></a></p>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="bottom"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><i>James E. Ryan</i></td>
</tr>
<td width="65%" align="left" valign="top"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/wilkinson.shtml">THE SEATTLE AND LOUISVILLE SCHOOL CASES: THERE IS NO OTHER WAY</font></a></p>
</td>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="middle"><font face="times" size="-1"><br /><i>J. Harvie Wilkinson III</i></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="left" valign="top"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><strong>LEADING CASES:</strong></p>
<ol type="I">
<li>CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
<ol type="A">
<li>Constitutional Remedies 
<p>Bivens <i>Damages — Takings Clause Retaliation</i>:<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml"> Wilkie v. Robbins</a></p>
<li>Criminal Law and Procedure
<ol type="1">
<li><i>Eighth Amendment —  Death Penalty —  Consideration of Mitigating Evidence</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Abdul-Kabir v. Quarterman; Brewer v. Quarterman</a>
<li><i>Eighth Amendment —  Death Penalty —  Execution of the Presently Incompetent</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Panetti v. Quarterman</a>
<li><i>Fourth Amendment — Reasonableness of Forcible Seizure</i>:<a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml"> Scott v. Harris</a>
<li><i>Sixth Amendment —  Allocation of Factfinding in Sentencing</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Cunningham v. California</a>
<li><i>Sixth Amendment —  Death Qualification Decisions</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Uttecht v. Brown</a>
<li><i>Sixth Amendment —  Federal Sentencing Guidelines — Presumption of Reasonableness</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Rita v. United States</a>
<li><i>Sixth Amendment — Ineffective Assistance of Counsel</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Schriro v. Landrigan</a>
</ol>
<li>Due Process
<ol type="1">
<li><i>Abortion Rights —  &#8220;Partial Birth&#8221; Abortion</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Gonzales v. Carhart</a>
<li><i>Punitive Damages</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Philip Morris USA v. Williams</a>
</ol>
<li>Freedom of Speech and Expression
<ol type="1">
<li><i>Campaign Finance Regulation</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc.</a>
<li><i>Student Speech</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Morse v. Frederick</a>
</ol>
</ol>
<li>FEDERAL JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE
<ol type="A">
<li>Civil Procedure<br /> <i>Pleading Standards</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly</a>
<li>Jurisdictional Status of Rules<br /> <i>Statutory Time Limits to Appeal</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Bowles v. Russell</a>
<li>Standing<br /> <i>Taxpayer Standing — Establishment Clause Violations</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation, Inc.</a>
</ol>
<li>FEDERAL STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
<ol type="A">
<li>Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act<br /><i>&#8220;Clearly Established Law&#8221; in Habeas Review</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Carey v. Musladin</a>
<li>Armed Career Criminal Act<br /><i>Definition of &#8220;Violent Felony&#8221;</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">James v. United States</a>
<li>Civil Rights Act, Title VII<br /><i>Statute of Limitations</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire &#038; Rubber Co.</a>
<li>Individuals with Disabilities Education Act <br /><i>Parental Rights</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Winkelman v. Parma City School District</a>
<li>Patent <br /><i>Obviousness</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc.</a>
<li>Private Securities Litigation Reform Act <br /><i>&#8220;Strong Inference&#8221; Pleading Standard</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Tellabs, Inc v. Makor Issues &#038; Rights, Ltd.</a>
<li>Review of Administrative Action
<ol type="1">
<li>Chevron <i>Deference</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Zuni Public School District No. 89 v. Department of Education</a>
<li><i>Deference to Agency Interpretation of Conflicting Statutes</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">National Ass&#8217;n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife</a>
<li><i>Limits on Agency Discretion</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Massachusetts v. EPA</a>
</ol>
<li>Sherman Act<br /> <i>Minimum Resale Price Maintenance</i>: <a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc.</a>
</ol>
</ol>
<p></font></td>
<td width="35%" align="right"><font face="times" size="-1">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="65%" align="left"><font face="times" size="-1"><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml"><strong>THE STATISTICS</strong></a></p>
<p></p>
</td>
<tr>
<td colspan=2 align="center"><font face="times" size="-1"></p>
<p><b>RECENT PUBLICATIONS</b></p>
<p><a href="http://www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/121/nov07/nov07.shtml">Full Text</a></td>
</tr>
<td width="35%" align="right" valign="top"><font face="times" size="-1">&nbsp;</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p></body></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/harvard_law_rev.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Announcing the Law Review Table of Contents Project</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_the_1.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_the_1.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Nov 2007 07:10:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Solove</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Boston College)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Chicago)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Columbia)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Cornell)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Duke)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Emory)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Fordham)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (GW)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Georgetown)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Indiana)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Michigan)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Minnesota)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (NYU)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Northwestern)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Notre Dame)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (S Cal)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Stanford)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Texas)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (UCLA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Vanderbilt)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Virginia)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Yale)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Contents]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/11/announcing-the-law-review-table-of-contents-project.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>I’m pleased to announce a new feature at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Table of Contents Project.  We have invited a number of the top law reviews to post the table of contents to their new issues and to provide links to the articles if they are posted on the law review’s website.</p>
<p>The goal of the Table of Contents Project is to provide you with a useful research tool.  Finding out about the latest law review publications can be difficult.  If you’re like me, you rarely read the physical issues of law reviews anymore; and you don’t have time to constantly keep checking each law review’s website to see if a new issue has been published.  Now you don’t have [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="table-of-contents1.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/table-of-contents1.jpg" width="379" height="293" ></p>
<p>I’m pleased to announce a new feature at Concurring Opinions – the <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/law_rev_contents/">Law Review Table of Contents Project</a>.  We have invited a number of the top law reviews to post the table of contents to their new issues and to provide links to the articles if they are posted on the law review’s website.</p>
<p>The goal of the Table of Contents Project is to provide you with a useful research tool.  Finding out about the latest law review publications can be difficult.  If you’re like me, you rarely read the physical issues of law reviews anymore; and you don’t have time to constantly keep checking each law review’s website to see if a new issue has been published.  Now you don’t have to.   Just keep reading Concurring Opinions, and information about the latest law review scholarship will be brought to you – all in one place!</p>
<p>Each journal’s tables of contents will be archived in two categories: (1) a category called <a href="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/law_rev_contents/">Law Rev Contents</a> – collecting all the law review table of contents postings; and (2) a category for each specific law review.</p>
<p>Participating law reviews thus far include:</p>
<p>* Boston College</p>
<p>* Chicago</p>
<p>* Columbia</p>
<p>* Cornell</p>
<p>* Duke</p>
<p>* Emory</p>
<p>* Fordham</p>
<p>* Georgetown</p>
<p>* GW</p>
<p>* Harvard</p>
<p>* Indiana</p>
<p>* Michigan</p>
<p>* Minnesota</p>
<p>* NYU</p>
<p>* Northwestern</p>
<p>* Notre Dame</p>
<p>* Southern California</p>
<p>* Stanford</p>
<p>* Texas</p>
<p>* UCLA</p>
<p>* Vanderbilt</p>
<p>* Virginia</p>
<p>* Washington University</p>
<p>* Yale</p>
<p>We still have a bunch of open invitations, so we anticipate that the number of participants will grow. Unfortunately, we cannot include all law reviews, as this will overwhelm the regular content of our blog.</p>
<p>We hope that you find this new feature to be helpful.  We’re very excited about it here, as we believe that this will be of great use to keep you informed about new legal scholarship.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/11/announcing_the_1.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>7</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Announcing the Law Review Forum Project</title>
		<link>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/04/announcing_the.html</link>
		<comments>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/04/announcing_the.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 08:04:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Daniel Solove</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Administrative Announcements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (GW)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Harvard)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Michigan)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Northwestern)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Penn)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (UCLA)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev (Virginia)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law Rev Forum]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law School (Law Reviews)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Law School (Scholarship)]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.solove.org/archives/2007/04/announcing-the-law-review-forum-project.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p></p>
<p>I am very pleased to announce a new project here at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Forum Project.  We will be hosting online forums for several law reviews.  Increasingly, law reviews are creating online forums as companions to their regular law review issues.  These forums contain very short response pieces, essays, debates, and other works that attempt to bridge the gap between regular legal scholarship and the blogosphere.</p>
<p>Journals seeking to create their own online forum face two daunting challenges.  First, they must create and actively maintain a web presence.  Second, they must find ways to attract readers, which is difficult in an age where so many blogs and other websites exist.  A wide readership for a website depends [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img alt="law-review-forum1.jpg" src="http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/images/law-review-forum1.jpg" width="486" height="128" /></p>
<p>I am very pleased to announce a new project here at Concurring Opinions – the Law Review Forum Project.  We will be hosting online forums for several law reviews.  Increasingly, law reviews are creating online forums as companions to their regular law review issues.  These forums contain very short response pieces, essays, debates, and other works that attempt to bridge the gap between regular legal scholarship and the blogosphere.</p>
<p>Journals seeking to create their own online forum face two daunting challenges.  First, they must create and actively maintain a web presence.  Second, they must find ways to attract readers, which is difficult in an age where so many blogs and other websites exist.  A wide readership for a website depends upon having daily content.  Law review forums produce content sporadically throughout the year at intervals that are not regular enough to attract a significant readership.</p>
<p>Therefore, we have invited a number of law reviews to participate in a partnership with our blog.  Throughout the year, each law review will periodically post forum essays here at Concurring Opinions.  We are not requiring an exclusive license, so participating law reviews can also cross-post at their own websites.</p>
<p>We see this as a mutually-beneficial arrangement.  We can bring great content to our blog, and law reviews can reach our significant audience without the pressures of having to build and maintain an online readership or of having to produce content with regularity.</p>
<p>Law reviews currently with and without existing forums will be participating.  Thus far, the following law reviews have agreed to participate:</p>
<blockquote><p>* Harvard Law Review</p>
<p>* Virginia Law Review</p>
<p>* Michigan Law Review</p>
<p>* University of Pennsylvania Law Review</p>
<p>* Northwestern Law Review</p>
<p>* UCLA Law Review</p>
<p>* George Washington Law Review</p></blockquote>
<p>In the near future, we hope to be expanding the list of participating law reviews.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2007/04/announcing_the.html/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
