U2Bama
Rock n' Roll Doggie
SAN FRANCISCO, CA - A three judge panel of the 9th Circuit Cour of Appeals struck down the U.S. Constitution today in a case involving a citizen who was offended by the wording of the document.
Ima Jerkoff, a bureaucrat from Marin County, sued the United States due to the use of the word "Blessings" (with a capital "B") in the preamble to the document which was ratified in 1789.
Jerkoff, in his original complaint, cited one of many definitions of "Blessing," specifically "A declaration of divine favor, or an invocation imploring divine favor on some or something; a benediction; a wish of happiness pronounces" as being inherently religious and therefore having no place in the secular nation's organizational document. The defense, for the United States, conceded that this was the definition of "Blessings" implied by the authors of the document, but that it did not establish any particular religion or deity as the bestower of such "Blessings." The crux of their defense was that a passage inscribed within the Constitution itself can not be "unconstitutional," but the Jerkoff and the 9th Circuit panel disagreed.
"Mr. Jerkoff has been visibly offended at having to work and live under a document which claims to be "Blessed" by a deity that possibly does not exist, and his mistreatment must be remedied. Such a document shall not stand as the law in a nation which was founded on the premise of a wall of seperation between church and state. Every United States citizen has the clearly defined right not to be offended, and safeguards of justice in defending that right are supreme in all matters of law," wrote a judge for the unanimous panel, all of whom heard the case and ruled anonymously due to political fallout from last week's Pledge of Allegiance ruling.
Jerkoff filed the complaint after reading a copy of the U.S. Constitution for the first time in his life at the age of forty-four. He had been watching a local access program on cable television wherein a marxist blasted the U.S. Constitution, bringing it to Jerkoff's attention. After doing some research and looking at a dictionary, Jerkoff determined that the document was indeed offensive to his beliefs and thus filed a lawsuit.
"I realized that this document had traumatized me and held me back my entire life and even back to the Constitution's inception. Some will say that I am just an attention-starved boob, but I am serious. I have been offended by this theocratic document," Jerkoff said from his organically-friendly Marin County home. Asked how he suddenly discovered his trauma after the document had been in existence for over 200 years, Mr. Jerkoff said it took him that long to fully understand the damage that it had caused.
The 9th Circuit panel offered some strong wording in their opinion that seems to challenge any appeal of the ruling. "The 9th Circuit as a whole and the U.S. Supreme Court have issued numerous flawed rulings in overturning decisions of panels of this Court. Let it be known that this ruling shall stand final in this case. Any Motion for Appeal is hereby denied." An also anonymous spokesperson for the panel commented that several members of the 9th Circuit are "sick and tired of cowboy judges from Wyoming and Idaho overturning their decisions" referring to the more conservative members who would possibly sit in on a re-hearing of the entire 9th Circuit. The spokesperson also added that "the U.S. Supreme Court shows no judicial respect for our decisions, which we take as a slap in the face."
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office that defended the case said that those claims are "not unlike the claims made by Senators from the states that seceded and formed the Confederacy in 1861, which I consider treasonous."
Although this ruling is apparently appeal-proof, at least to the 3-judge panel, Mr. Jerkoff's day in court is not over. He also has an appeal under review in which he challneges the Declaration of Independence due to its use of the words "God" and "their Creator." Jerkoff wishes to have the Declaration of Independence invalidated, thus effectively returning the United States to British rule. When asked if he realizes that such a ruling would restore the Church of England as the official religion of the land, Jerkoff said "It's the principle of the thing. I basically want to prove how offensive the ideals of the United States are."
Ironically, the panel was expected to rule on the Declaration of Independence this week, but delayed it due to potential conflicts with the Independence Day hoilday. "The panel feared that angry holiday revellers would taunt them with firecrackers and bottle rockets all weekend," said their anonymous spokesperson. He assured a ruling by early next week.
Ima Jerkoff, a bureaucrat from Marin County, sued the United States due to the use of the word "Blessings" (with a capital "B") in the preamble to the document which was ratified in 1789.
Jerkoff, in his original complaint, cited one of many definitions of "Blessing," specifically "A declaration of divine favor, or an invocation imploring divine favor on some or something; a benediction; a wish of happiness pronounces" as being inherently religious and therefore having no place in the secular nation's organizational document. The defense, for the United States, conceded that this was the definition of "Blessings" implied by the authors of the document, but that it did not establish any particular religion or deity as the bestower of such "Blessings." The crux of their defense was that a passage inscribed within the Constitution itself can not be "unconstitutional," but the Jerkoff and the 9th Circuit panel disagreed.
"Mr. Jerkoff has been visibly offended at having to work and live under a document which claims to be "Blessed" by a deity that possibly does not exist, and his mistreatment must be remedied. Such a document shall not stand as the law in a nation which was founded on the premise of a wall of seperation between church and state. Every United States citizen has the clearly defined right not to be offended, and safeguards of justice in defending that right are supreme in all matters of law," wrote a judge for the unanimous panel, all of whom heard the case and ruled anonymously due to political fallout from last week's Pledge of Allegiance ruling.
Jerkoff filed the complaint after reading a copy of the U.S. Constitution for the first time in his life at the age of forty-four. He had been watching a local access program on cable television wherein a marxist blasted the U.S. Constitution, bringing it to Jerkoff's attention. After doing some research and looking at a dictionary, Jerkoff determined that the document was indeed offensive to his beliefs and thus filed a lawsuit.
"I realized that this document had traumatized me and held me back my entire life and even back to the Constitution's inception. Some will say that I am just an attention-starved boob, but I am serious. I have been offended by this theocratic document," Jerkoff said from his organically-friendly Marin County home. Asked how he suddenly discovered his trauma after the document had been in existence for over 200 years, Mr. Jerkoff said it took him that long to fully understand the damage that it had caused.
The 9th Circuit panel offered some strong wording in their opinion that seems to challenge any appeal of the ruling. "The 9th Circuit as a whole and the U.S. Supreme Court have issued numerous flawed rulings in overturning decisions of panels of this Court. Let it be known that this ruling shall stand final in this case. Any Motion for Appeal is hereby denied." An also anonymous spokesperson for the panel commented that several members of the 9th Circuit are "sick and tired of cowboy judges from Wyoming and Idaho overturning their decisions" referring to the more conservative members who would possibly sit in on a re-hearing of the entire 9th Circuit. The spokesperson also added that "the U.S. Supreme Court shows no judicial respect for our decisions, which we take as a slap in the face."
A spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney's office that defended the case said that those claims are "not unlike the claims made by Senators from the states that seceded and formed the Confederacy in 1861, which I consider treasonous."
Although this ruling is apparently appeal-proof, at least to the 3-judge panel, Mr. Jerkoff's day in court is not over. He also has an appeal under review in which he challneges the Declaration of Independence due to its use of the words "God" and "their Creator." Jerkoff wishes to have the Declaration of Independence invalidated, thus effectively returning the United States to British rule. When asked if he realizes that such a ruling would restore the Church of England as the official religion of the land, Jerkoff said "It's the principle of the thing. I basically want to prove how offensive the ideals of the United States are."
Ironically, the panel was expected to rule on the Declaration of Independence this week, but delayed it due to potential conflicts with the Independence Day hoilday. "The panel feared that angry holiday revellers would taunt them with firecrackers and bottle rockets all weekend," said their anonymous spokesperson. He assured a ruling by early next week.
)
