<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for Explore The Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://explorethelaw.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://explorethelaw.com</link>
	<description>Explore the law and see what is legal.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:53:32 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What is a better bachelors degree for law school? by Walton</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/what-is-a-better-bachelors-degree-for-law-school/comment-page-1/#comment-235</link>
		<dc:creator>Walton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 23:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/what-is-a-better-bachelors-degree-for-law-school/#comment-235</guid>
		<description>First there is no prescribed undergraduate degree for law school. Second, and unfortunately, law schools do not take into consideration - at least in my opinion - the rigor of the undergraduate degree to the extent they should. A 3.3 in Engineering is MUCH harder than a 3.3 in English, but it seems as if they are nearly &quot;stricly by the numbers&quot;. That being said, Philosophy would probably allow for an easier curriculum and better chances of admission on the basis of GPA. However, Econ would clearly provide more career opportunities in the absence of law school, and if you did get admitted, would pave a path for corporate law whereas Philosophy likely would not. 

Your faced with somewhat of a tradeoff here, but my advice is to pursue the Econ. The more difficult coursework may also help you out in the way of the LSAT as well, which is the other main admissions component.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First there is no prescribed undergraduate degree for law school. Second, and unfortunately, law schools do not take into consideration &#8211; at least in my opinion &#8211; the rigor of the undergraduate degree to the extent they should. A 3.3 in Engineering is MUCH harder than a 3.3 in English, but it seems as if they are nearly &#8220;stricly by the numbers&#8221;. That being said, Philosophy would probably allow for an easier curriculum and better chances of admission on the basis of GPA. However, Econ would clearly provide more career opportunities in the absence of law school, and if you did get admitted, would pave a path for corporate law whereas Philosophy likely would not. </p>
<p>Your faced with somewhat of a tradeoff here, but my advice is to pursue the Econ. The more difficult coursework may also help you out in the way of the LSAT as well, which is the other main admissions component.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What is a better bachelors degree for law school? by Cochise</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/what-is-a-better-bachelors-degree-for-law-school/comment-page-1/#comment-234</link>
		<dc:creator>Cochise</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 24 Jul 2010 21:44:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/what-is-a-better-bachelors-degree-for-law-school/#comment-234</guid>
		<description>Get a BBA and minor in philosophy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Get a BBA and minor in philosophy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How come porn is legal but prostitution on its own is not? by PetroGuy</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/how-come-porn-is-legal-but-prostitution-on-its-own-is-not/comment-page-1/#comment-118</link>
		<dc:creator>PetroGuy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jul 2010 08:16:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/how-come-porn-is-legal-but-prostitution-on-its-own-is-not/#comment-118</guid>
		<description>Prostitution is not illegal. Soliciting or Communication for the purpose of Prostitution is.

You can sell sexual services. You just can&#039;t advertise it or actively promote your product.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Prostitution is not illegal. Soliciting or Communication for the purpose of Prostitution is.</p>
<p>You can sell sexual services. You just can&#8217;t advertise it or actively promote your product.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How come porn is legal but prostitution on its own is not? by John Doe</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/how-come-porn-is-legal-but-prostitution-on-its-own-is-not/comment-page-1/#comment-117</link>
		<dc:creator>John Doe</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Jul 2010 05:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/how-come-porn-is-legal-but-prostitution-on-its-own-is-not/#comment-117</guid>
		<description>one gets taxes taken out of the paycheck. the Gov. doesn&#039;t want anyone to work unless they (Gov.) get paid. another thing is that they don&#039;t really want people to have another sexual release, unless they get paid. thats it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>one gets taxes taken out of the paycheck. the Gov. doesn&#8217;t want anyone to work unless they (Gov.) get paid. another thing is that they don&#8217;t really want people to have another sexual release, unless they get paid. thats it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How come porn is legal but prostitution on its own is not? by ? Logic316 ?</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/how-come-porn-is-legal-but-prostitution-on-its-own-is-not/comment-page-1/#comment-116</link>
		<dc:creator>? Logic316 ?</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 13 Jul 2010 06:12:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/how-come-porn-is-legal-but-prostitution-on-its-own-is-not/#comment-116</guid>
		<description>I would say the practical difference between the two is that most homeowners and business owners simply don&#039;t want scantily clad hookers hanging around in front of their buildings and creating a public nuisance by producing extra traffic on their streets at all hours of the night. Porn producers and escort services don&#039;t create that sort of annoyance, so the cops generally leave them alone.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I would say the practical difference between the two is that most homeowners and business owners simply don&#8217;t want scantily clad hookers hanging around in front of their buildings and creating a public nuisance by producing extra traffic on their streets at all hours of the night. Porn producers and escort services don&#8217;t create that sort of annoyance, so the cops generally leave them alone.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Justice Department Sues Arizona for Immigration Law &#8212; But Does &#8230; by Mr WordPress</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/hello-world/comment-page-1/#comment-1</link>
		<dc:creator>Mr WordPress</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jul 2010 01:26:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/?p=1#comment-1</guid>
		<description>Hi, this is a comment.&lt;br /&gt;To delete a comment, just log in and view the post&#039;s comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, this is a comment.<br />To delete a comment, just log in and view the post&#039;s comments. There you will have the option to edit or delete them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on What Law of Physics is defied by the disappearance of the sun? by Sam</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/what-law-of-physics-is-defied-by-the-disappearance-of-the-sun/comment-page-1/#comment-168</link>
		<dc:creator>Sam</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jun 2010 14:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/what-law-of-physics-is-defied-by-the-disappearance-of-the-sun/#comment-168</guid>
		<description>Light can be disturb by a very strong magnetic field such as black holes. Thus, a star seems to appear on different location.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Light can be disturb by a very strong magnetic field such as black holes. Thus, a star seems to appear on different location.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How can you pass a law legalizing something that is already legal? by bcnu</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/how-can-you-pass-a-law-legalizing-something-that-is-already-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-227</link>
		<dc:creator>bcnu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 13:48:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/how-can-you-pass-a-law-legalizing-something-that-is-already-legal/#comment-227</guid>
		<description>There are thousands of laws that do this: providing or clarifying an exception to an existing law, thus removing doubt as to the desired behavior, or placing other limits on the enforcement of an existing law so that those who enforce the laws cannot accidentally overstep their authority.

Imagine there are those who believe the Second Amendment provides some federal rights against states that want to enforce gun-control laws (which it doesn&#039;t). In theory, the &quot;right to bear arms&quot; is already on the books, at least under federal jurisdiction. However, some states have passed laws that prevent private property owners from keeping people out of their premises when they are bearing arms. It was already &quot;legal&quot; under the federal Constitution, but the local law extends that legality to a specific situation under state law.  Not exactly what happened in the CA case you mention, but serves to demonstrate that &quot;legal&quot; is not &quot;always legal.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are thousands of laws that do this: providing or clarifying an exception to an existing law, thus removing doubt as to the desired behavior, or placing other limits on the enforcement of an existing law so that those who enforce the laws cannot accidentally overstep their authority.</p>
<p>Imagine there are those who believe the Second Amendment provides some federal rights against states that want to enforce gun-control laws (which it doesn&#8217;t). In theory, the &#8220;right to bear arms&#8221; is already on the books, at least under federal jurisdiction. However, some states have passed laws that prevent private property owners from keeping people out of their premises when they are bearing arms. It was already &#8220;legal&#8221; under the federal Constitution, but the local law extends that legality to a specific situation under state law.  Not exactly what happened in the CA case you mention, but serves to demonstrate that &#8220;legal&#8221; is not &#8220;always legal.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How can you pass a law legalizing something that is already legal? by rickinnocal</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/how-can-you-pass-a-law-legalizing-something-that-is-already-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-226</link>
		<dc:creator>rickinnocal</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:52:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/how-can-you-pass-a-law-legalizing-something-that-is-already-legal/#comment-226</guid>
		<description>The law did NOT make it legal to breastfeed a baby in public.

The law made it ILLEGAL for a public agency, or for a restaurant, and some other types of businesses, to prohibit breastfeeding on their property. 

Prior to the law, if you started to breastfeed your baby in a restaurant, you were not breaking the law. However, it was perfectly legal for the manager to tell you to stop, or leave. Under the new law, he may not do so.

Richard</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The law did NOT make it legal to breastfeed a baby in public.</p>
<p>The law made it ILLEGAL for a public agency, or for a restaurant, and some other types of businesses, to prohibit breastfeeding on their property. </p>
<p>Prior to the law, if you started to breastfeed your baby in a restaurant, you were not breaking the law. However, it was perfectly legal for the manager to tell you to stop, or leave. Under the new law, he may not do so.</p>
<p>Richard</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on How can you pass a law legalizing something that is already legal? by Elwood P. Dowd</title>
		<link>http://explorethelaw.com/how-can-you-pass-a-law-legalizing-something-that-is-already-legal/comment-page-1/#comment-225</link>
		<dc:creator>Elwood P. Dowd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jun 2010 06:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://explorethelaw.com/how-can-you-pass-a-law-legalizing-something-that-is-already-legal/#comment-225</guid>
		<description>Some idiots do not know how to take &quot;yes&quot; for an answer.  I am sorry you are one of those.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Some idiots do not know how to take &#8220;yes&#8221; for an answer.  I am sorry you are one of those.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk

Served from: explorethelaw.com @ 2010-09-06 00:17:20 -->