<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd" version="2.0">
 <channel>
  <title>The Oyez Project: Judicial Power Issues - Legal Injury Arguments</title>
  <link>http://www.oyez.org/issues/judicial-power/legal-injury/</link>
  <description>U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</description>
  <language>en-us</language>
  <itunes:image>http://www.oyez.org/images/oyezfeed.jpg</itunes:image>
  <itunes:category text="Government &amp; Organizations"/>
      <itunes:subtitle>U.S. Supreme Court Audio Recordings, presented by The Oyez Project (www.oyez.org)</itunes:subtitle>
    
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Baker v. Carr - Oral Argument, Part 1</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1961 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>6_19610419-argument-1</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6/argument-1/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6/argument-1/6_19610419-argument-1.mp3" length="24608247" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
   
    
     
      
       <item>
        <title>Baker v. Carr - Oral Argument, Part 2</title>
        <pubDate>Wed, 19 Apr 1961 12:00:00 -0500</pubDate>
                <description>&lt;p&gt;Charles W. Baker and other Tennessee citizens alleged that a 1901 law designed to apportion the seats for the state's General Assembly was virtually ignored. Baker's suit detailed how Tennessee's reapportionment efforts ignored significant economic growth and population shifts within the state.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
        <itunes:summary>&lt;p&gt;Did the Supreme Court have jurisdiction over questions of legislative apportionment?&lt;/p&gt;</itunes:summary>
        <guid>6_19610420-argument-2</guid>
        <link>http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6/argument-2/</link>
        <enclosure url="http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1960/1960_6/argument-2/6_19610420-argument-2.mp3" length="23166914" type="audio/mpeg"/>
        
        <itunes:keywords>supreme, court, oyez, rehnquist</itunes:keywords>
       </item>
      
      
     
    
   
  
 </channel>
</rss>
