<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>First Things RSS Feed - Robert F. Nagel</title>
		<link>https://www.firstthings.com/author/robert-f-nagel</link>
		<atom:link href="https://www.firstthings.com/rss/author/robert-f-nagel" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<description></description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 2025 First Things. All Rights Reserved.</copyright>
		<managingEditor>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>ft@firstthings.com (The Editors)</webMaster>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:56:52 -0500</pubDate>
		
		<ttl>60</ttl>

		<item>
			<title>Common Sense and Common Law</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/02/common-sense-and-common-law</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/02/common-sense-and-common-law</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Feb 2004 00:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p><strong>Common-Law Liberty:&nbsp; Rethinking American Constitutionalism.</strong>
<br>
<span class="small-caps">by James R. Stoner, Jr.</span>
<br>
<span class="small-caps">University Press of Kansas.&nbsp; 208 pp. $29.95.</span>
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2004/02/common-sense-and-common-law">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Justice Stevens&rsquo; Religion Problem</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/06/justice-stevens-religion-problem</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/06/justice-stevens-religion-problem</link>
			<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jun 2003 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p> On many occasions the Supreme Court has declared that the religion clause of the First Amendment prohibits government from acting with the purpose of disapproving a particular religion or religion in general. For instance, in a colorful case involving a city ordinance restricting the practice of animal sacrifice, the Court severely criticized officials for acting out of animosity towards the Santeria religion, which engages in the ritualistic slaughter of pigeons, goats, and turtles (among other animals) and at least sometimes leaves the carcasses along roadsides and in other public places. A majority of the Justices went so far as to proclaim, &ldquo;The Free Exercise Clause commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from animosity to religion  . . .  all officials must remember their own high duty to the Constitution.&rdquo; This duty demands that officials be &ldquo;resolute  . . .  [to] ensure&rdquo; that disapproval of religion is never among the reasons for governmental action.  
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/06/justice-stevens-religion-problem">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Playing Defense in Colorado</title>
			<guid>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/05/playing-defense-in-colorado</guid>
			<link>https://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/05/playing-defense-in-colorado</link>
			<pubDate>Fri, 01 May 1998 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
			
			<description><![CDATA[<p>The long-standing debate about the legitimacy of the Supreme Court&rsquo;s constitutional rulings has recently been renewed with increased intensity. Traditionally, critics of the Court have charged that its decisions are too often &ldquo;political&rdquo; or &ldquo;unprincipled&rdquo; or &ldquo;lawless.&rdquo; The terms of the current debate, as developed in the pages of this journal and elsewhere, go further and raise the suggestion that the federal judiciary has made itself an active participant in a pervasive cultural struggle, a struggle involving fundamentally opposed moral worldviews.
</p> <p><em><a href="https://www.firstthings.com/article/1998/05/playing-defense-in-colorado">Continue Reading </a> &raquo;</em></p>]]></description>
		</item>
			</channel>
</rss>
