<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Arizona DUI Stupidity</title>
	<atom:link href="http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2009/07/07/arizona-dui-stupidity/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2009/07/07/arizona-dui-stupidity/</link>
	<description>An Arizona Criminal Defense Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 24 Feb 2010 19:27:59 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Gavin</title>
		<link>http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2009/07/07/arizona-dui-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-4210</link>
		<dc:creator>Gavin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 22:08:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2009/07/07/arizona-dui-stupidity/#comment-4210</guid>
		<description>Wow, OK.  I&#039;m just a humble philosophy student and not a lawyer, so I did not know that codifying the common law actually preempted it.  My sense before was that something, such as the common law defense of necessity, intrinsicly exists as a natural right, and can&#039;t be limited by a statute.  I&#039;d have thought only that a statute could create a safe harbour, and not any kind of exclusion.

I was wrong.  And wow, I&#039;m digesting that now.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, OK.  I&#8217;m just a humble philosophy student and not a lawyer, so I did not know that codifying the common law actually preempted it.  My sense before was that something, such as the common law defense of necessity, intrinsicly exists as a natural right, and can&#8217;t be limited by a statute.  I&#8217;d have thought only that a statute could create a safe harbour, and not any kind of exclusion.</p>
<p>I was wrong.  And wow, I&#8217;m digesting that now.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Matt Brown</title>
		<link>http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2009/07/07/arizona-dui-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-4209</link>
		<dc:creator>Matt Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 21:11:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2009/07/07/arizona-dui-stupidity/#comment-4209</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m honestly not sure.  Arizona has put many things ordinarily based in the common law into its statutes.  I imagine that&#039;s not uncommon, as I think legislatures generally like taking discretion away from courts.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m honestly not sure.  Arizona has put many things ordinarily based in the common law into its statutes.  I imagine that&#8217;s not uncommon, as I think legislatures generally like taking discretion away from courts.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gavin</title>
		<link>http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2009/07/07/arizona-dui-stupidity/comment-page-1/#comment-4205</link>
		<dc:creator>Gavin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:22:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://brownandlittlelaw.com/blog1/2009/07/07/arizona-dui-stupidity/#comment-4205</guid>
		<description>Wow, no common law defense of neccessity?  How common is that?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wow, no common law defense of neccessity?  How common is that?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
