<?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>Columbia Law Review</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.columbialawreview.org/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 17:27:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Coordination Reconsidered</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/coordination-reconsidered_briffault/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/coordination-reconsidered_briffault/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 08:49:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ExecSidebarPosting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sidebar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9596</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<b> By: Richard Briffault</b>
The explosion of independent spending funded by Super PACs and other organizations in the last two election cycles raises new questions about the effectiveness of contribution limits and, perhaps, about the value of maintaining them.  But if the law is to continue to limit contributions because of the dangers of corruption and the appearance of corruption they pose, and to maintain the integrity of the contribution/expenditure distinction that has been a foundational part of our campaign finance law for nearly four decades, it is essential to redefine coordination to address the emergence of single-candidate Super PACs. The proposal in this Essay is intended as a contribution to that process.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/coordination-reconsidered_briffault/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Lessons on Terrorism and &#8220;Mistaken Identity&#8221; from Oak Creek, with a Coda on the Boston Marathon Bombings</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/lessons-on-terrorism-and-mistaken-identity-from-oak-creek_sidhu/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/lessons-on-terrorism-and-mistaken-identity-from-oak-creek_sidhu/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 18:26:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ExecSidebarPosting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sidebar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9585</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<b>By: Dawinder S. Sidhu</b>
The tragic events in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, thrust upon an obscure religious community, and more broadly upon our laws and society, provide us with an opportunity to assess the efficacy of the law and conceptual explanations, not only as they apply to this incident, but also to those that may occur in the future. As discussed here, Oak Creek indicates why the definition of “terrorism” should be amended to not rely on the subjective motivation underlying the random killing of innocents, and how the disability-rights context may facilitate understanding and undermine criticisms of the media that are premised on notions of offensiveness or political value judgments. Oak Creek offers at least these lessons.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/lessons-on-terrorism-and-mistaken-identity-from-oak-creek_sidhu/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bluebook Invitational Press Release</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/bluebook-invitational-press-release/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/bluebook-invitational-press-release/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:46:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements & Events]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9501</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The sky was cloudy and the wind was fierce at times, but the elements were no match for the red-hot CLR flag-football team. Neither, for that matter, were the teams from Harvard, Yale, and Penn. For the seventh straight year, the four journals met to decide which would leave New Haven with the coveted Bluebook [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/bluebook-invitational-press-release/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Just Undercompensation:  The Idiosyncratic Premium in Eminent Domain</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/just-undercompensation-the-idiosyncratic-premium-in-eminent-domain/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/just-undercompensation-the-idiosyncratic-premium-in-eminent-domain/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 19:03:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9627</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By:  Brian Angelo Lee &#160; When the government exercises its power of eminent domain to take private property, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires that the property’s owners receive “just compensation,” which the Supreme Court has defined as equal to the property’s fair market value. Today, a well-established consensus exists on three basic [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/just-undercompensation-the-idiosyncratic-premium-in-eminent-domain/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Dividing Sovereignty in Tribal and Territorial Criminal Jurisdiction</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/dividing-sovereignty-in-tribal-and-territorial-criminal-jurisdiction/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/dividing-sovereignty-in-tribal-and-territorial-criminal-jurisdiction/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:58:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9624</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By:  Zachary S. Price &#160; In both federal Indian law and the law regarding United States territories, the Supreme Court in recent decades has shown increasing skepticism about previously tolerated elements of constitutionally unregulated local governmental authority. This Article proposes a framework for resolving constitutional questions raised by the Court’s recent cases in these areas. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/dividing-sovereignty-in-tribal-and-territorial-criminal-jurisdiction/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deregulate but Still Disclose?:  Disclosure Requirements for Ballot Question Advocacy After Citizens United v. FEC and Doe v. Reed</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/deregulate-but-still-disclose-disclosure-requirements-for-ballot-question-advocacy-after-citizens-united-v-fec-and-doe-v-reed/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/deregulate-but-still-disclose-disclosure-requirements-for-ballot-question-advocacy-after-citizens-united-v-fec-and-doe-v-reed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:35:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Notes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9620</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By:  Sean McMahon &#160; A relatively unheralded aspect of the Supreme Court’s controversial decision in Citizens United v. FEC is its strong affirmation of the constitutionality and utility of disclosure requirements for individuals and groups engaged in political advocacy. In both Citizens United and Doe v. Reed, decided a few months later, the Court issued [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/deregulate-but-still-disclose-disclosure-requirements-for-ballot-question-advocacy-after-citizens-united-v-fec-and-doe-v-reed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Confusion of Fusion:  Inconsistent Application of the Establishment Clause Nondelegation Rule in State Courts</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-confusion-of-fusion-inconsistent-application-of-the-establishment-clause-nondelegation-rule-in-state-courts/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-confusion-of-fusion-inconsistent-application-of-the-establishment-clause-nondelegation-rule-in-state-courts/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:23:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Notes]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9617</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By:  Jun Xiang &#160; It seems almost beyond dispute that if the Federal Establishment Clause prohibits anything, it prohibits religious institutions from wielding governmental power. So thought the U.S. Supreme Court in Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc. when it announced that the delegation of governmental power to churches amounted to an impermissible “fusion” of government [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-confusion-of-fusion-inconsistent-application-of-the-establishment-clause-nondelegation-rule-in-state-courts/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Upside of Losing</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-upside-of-losing/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-upside-of-losing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 18:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Essays & Book Reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9613</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By:  Ben Depoorter &#160; Conventional understanding in legal reform communities is that time and resources are best directed toward legal disputes that have the highest chance of success and that litigation is to be avoided if it is likely to establish or strengthen unfavorable precedent. Contrary to this accepted wisdom, this Essay analyzes the strategic [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-upside-of-losing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>South Carolina’s “Evolutionary Process”</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:44:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ExecSidebarPosting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sidebar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=9038</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<b>By: Ellen D. Katz</b>
There is an additional narrative the Justices should consider when they evaluate how far places subject to the VRA’s regional provisions have evolved. This narrative posits that section 5 is far from obsolete and operates not only as a restraint on the ill-intentioned, but also as an affirmative tool of governance. On this account, one of the VRA’s most critical, albeit least appreciated, functions is the way in which it helps public officials navigate complex contemporary questions concerning equality of opportunity in the political process.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/south-carolinas-evolutionary-process/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Beyond “Perfection”: Can the Insights of Perfecting Criminal Markets Be Put to Practical Use?</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/beyond-perfection-can-the-insights-of-perfecting-criminal-markets-be-put-to-practical-use/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/beyond-perfection-can-the-insights-of-perfecting-criminal-markets-be-put-to-practical-use/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Mar 2013 15:08:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ExecSidebarPosting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sidebar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=8936</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<b>By: Caren Myers Morrison</b>
David Jaros’s thought-provoking new Article, <i>Perfecting Criminal Markets</i>,  sheds light on a heretofore unappreciated effect of our obsession with criminalization: that merely by creating new crimes, lawmakers may inadvertently strengthen existing criminal markets.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/beyond-perfection-can-the-insights-of-perfecting-criminal-markets-be-put-to-practical-use/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Bargaining in the Shadow of the Debt Ceiling: When Negotiating over Spending and Tax Laws, Congress and the President Should Consider the Debt Ceiling a Dead Letter</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/bargaining-in-the-shadow-of-the-debt-ceiling-when-negotiating-over-spending-and-tax-laws-congress-and-the-president-should-consider-the-debt-ceiling-a-dead-letter/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/bargaining-in-the-shadow-of-the-debt-ceiling-when-negotiating-over-spending-and-tax-laws-congress-and-the-president-should-consider-the-debt-ceiling-a-dead-letter/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 16:14:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ExecSidebarPosting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sidebar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=7296</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<b>By: Neil H. Buchanan &#038; Michael C. Dorf</b>
If the debt ceiling is inconsistent with existing spending and taxing laws, what must the President do? In earlier work, we argued that when Congress creates a “trilemma”—making it impossible for the President to spend as much as Congress has ordered, to tax only as much as Congress has ordered, and to borrow no more than Congress has permitted—the Constitution requires the President to choose the least unconstitutional path.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/bargaining-in-the-shadow-of-the-debt-ceiling-when-negotiating-over-spending-and-tax-laws-congress-and-the-president-should-consider-the-debt-ceiling-a-dead-letter/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Announcing the Publication of 2L Notes</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/announcing-the-columbia-law-reviews-publication-of-2l-notes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/announcing-the-columbia-law-reviews-publication-of-2l-notes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Mar 2013 01:19:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colin Quinlan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements & Events]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=7204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Please join us in congratulating the following students on their upcoming publication in the Columbia Law Review next year: &#160; David P. Friedman, The Regulator in Robes: Examining the SEC and the Delaware Court of Chancery&#8217;s Parallel Disclosure Regimes &#160; Franziska Hertel, Qui Tam for Tax?: Lessons from the States &#160; T. Dietrich Hill, The [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/announcing-the-columbia-law-reviews-publication-of-2l-notes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Congratulations to the 2013-14 Columbia Law Review Administrative Board!</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/congratulations-to-the-2013-14-columbia-law-review-administrative-board/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/congratulations-to-the-2013-14-columbia-law-review-administrative-board/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Mar 2013 22:14:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Colin Quinlan</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Announcements & Events]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=7165</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Congratulations to the 2013-14 Columbia Law Review Administrative Board! &#160; Angela Sun Editor-in-Chief &#160; Sarah Green Executive Articles Editor &#160; Jack Starcher Executive Essay &#38; Review Editor &#160; Erin Parlar Executive Managing Editor &#160; David Friedman Executive Notes Editor &#160; Chris Burke Executive Sidebar Editor &#160; Tim Gray Franziska Hertel Arjun Jaikumar Jessica Lutkenhaus Arlene [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/congratulations-to-the-2013-14-columbia-law-review-administrative-board/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>In Defense of Big Waiver</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/in-defense-of-big-waiver/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/in-defense-of-big-waiver/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:42:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles - Archived]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=8719</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By: David J. Barron &#38; Todd D. Rakoff Congressional delegation of broad lawmaking power to administrative agencies has defined the modern regulatory state. But a new form of this foundational practice is being implemented with increasing frequency: the delegation to agencies of the power to waive requirements that Congress itself has passed. It appears, among [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/in-defense-of-big-waiver/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Technological Innovation, International Competition, and the Challenges of International Income Taxation</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/technological-innovation-international-competition-and-the-challenges-of-international-income-taxation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/technological-innovation-international-competition-and-the-challenges-of-international-income-taxation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:33:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Articles - Archived]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=8716</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By: Michael J. Graetz &#38; Rachael Doud Because of the importance of technological innovation to economic growth, nations strive to stimulate and attract the research and development (“R&#38;D”) that leads to that innovation and to make themselves hospitable environments for the holding of intellectual property (“IP”). Tax policies have taken center stage in their efforts [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/technological-innovation-international-competition-and-the-challenges-of-international-income-taxation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>What&#8217;s It to You?  Citizen Challenges to Landmark Preservation Decisions and the Special Damage Requirements</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/whats-it-to-you-citizen-challenges-to-landmark-preservation-decisions-and-the-special-damage-requirements/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/whats-it-to-you-citizen-challenges-to-landmark-preservation-decisions-and-the-special-damage-requirements/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:29:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Notes - Archived]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=8713</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By:  Matt Dulak The special damage rule—a component of standing doctrine requiring a plaintiff’s alleged injury to differ somehow from that of the general public—has long thwarted citizen challenges to inaction by government regulators, particularly in environmental suits. While courts in many jurisdictions have trended toward relaxing the special damage rule in environmental cases, the [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/whats-it-to-you-citizen-challenges-to-landmark-preservation-decisions-and-the-special-damage-requirements/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Record:  Why the Senate Should Have Access to Treaty Negotiating Documents</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/on-the-record-why-the-senate-should-have-access-to-treaty-negotiating-documents/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/on-the-record-why-the-senate-should-have-access-to-treaty-negotiating-documents/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:25:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Notes - Archived]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=8710</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By: John Love  The Treaty Clause of the Constitution describes the mechanism through which the United States enters into treaties with other nations. Though seemingly straightforward, the Clause is unique in that it is an “explicit constitutional mandate to share power.” As such, defining the precise contours of this power has led to several conflicts [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/on-the-record-why-the-senate-should-have-access-to-treaty-negotiating-documents/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The New Textualism and Normative Canons</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-new-textualism-and-normative-canons-3/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-new-textualism-and-normative-canons-3/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:23:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>BusinessOffice</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Essays - Archived]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=8707</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[By: William N. Eskridge, Jr. In Reading Law, Justice Scalia and his coauthor, Professor Bryan Garner, promise that text-based statutory interpretation can be rendered more predictable and constraining if 57 “valid canons” are followed. Admiring the enterprise, this Review maintains that this regime would not solve the problems of unpredictability or judicial policymaking Reading Law [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/the-new-textualism-and-normative-canons-3/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Class Actions All the Way Down</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/class-actions-all-the-way-down/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/class-actions-all-the-way-down/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 15 Feb 2013 22:24:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ExecSidebarPosting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sidebar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=4433</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<b>By: Sergio J. Campos</b>
In his review of <em>Kill Bill Volume I</em>, Roger Ebert describes the film as “kind of brilliant,” and then proceeds to quote Manny Farber’s definition of auteur theory: “A bunch of guys standing around trying to catch someone shoving art up into the crevices of dreck.”]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/class-actions-all-the-way-down/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Some Pluralism About Pluralism: A Comment on Hanoch Dagan&#8217;s &#8220;Pluralism and Perfectionism in Private Law&#8221;</title>
		<link>http://www.columbialawreview.org/some-pluralism-about-pluralism-a-comment-on-hanoch-dagans-pluralism-and-perfectionism-in-private-law/</link>
		<comments>http://www.columbialawreview.org/some-pluralism-about-pluralism-a-comment-on-hanoch-dagans-pluralism-and-perfectionism-in-private-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2013 15:55:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ExecSidebarPosting</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sidebar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.columbialawreview.org/?p=3975</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<b>By: Jedediah Purdy</b>
Hanoch Dagan is among “those who think it advantageous to get as much ethics into the law as they can,” in the phrase of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. His pluralism is a perfectionism for polytheists: There are many human goods, and each has its domain, including some portion of the law of property.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.columbialawreview.org/some-pluralism-about-pluralism-a-comment-on-hanoch-dagans-pluralism-and-perfectionism-in-private-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
