Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > 40Deuce > Sherry Stringfield's ass in 93 |
11 vaginas walk into a bar
|
11 vaginas walk into a bar I was curious today about the oldest legal precedent that is still cited in modern US case law , which I was unable to determine , but in trying to research this I started looking at some of the earliest US Supreme Court rulings one of which was Chisholm v. Georgia which ultimately lead to the passing of the 11th Amendment . Here is what the 11th Amendment says ; The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State. Now what this sounds like to me is that it's saying that you cannot initiate legal proceedings against any state in the union . Which clearly can't be true because people sue states all the time . So after a lot of fruitless internetting I asked my buddy Bursitis Jimmy , who does not practice law but does have a law degree and passed the bar (sidenote he has a really big dick) and he said that this is interpreted four ways currently ; 1 - No one can sue any state without their consent 2 - You can only sue the state you live in 3 - You can only sue states you don't live in 4 - You can only sue a state if Congress says you can Now you may be thinking "don't those thing all directly controvert one another ?" And the answer is YES !!! What I learned today is that the constitution , that thing that people get all up in arms about over every damn thing , is basically meaningless . One fallacy I had was that people don't sue "states" all the time - what they do is they sue people who work for the state . Such as , let's say that a Department of Transportation truck runs over your dick and you want to sue them for the 13.5 million dollars in lost revenue from your career as a<b> . </font></b>What you do is you sue the head of the DOT and said head of the DOT has an employment contract that says if he gets sued the state will indemnify him for whatever losses are levied against him . BJ described this as a "legal fiction" that everyone just goes along with because you SHOULD be able to sue the state . So what's the point of the amendment then if no one agrees what it means and it's circumvented in any event ? Hell if I know . But the founding fathers did it so we have to worship it like the secular fanatics we are . One of the other early Supreme Court cases - can you tax carriages . Spoiler alert - you can . Anyway , all this came about because in the early days of the US tons of war vets wanted to sue the state militias they were in for all the pay they never got and the states were all like "nah you can't sue the government because we're infallible" . One other interesting tidbit I found out that is traditionally a lot of other countries used to cite US Supreme Court decisions in adjudicating their own legal issues - which seems insane to me at first because I'm American we hate all other countries but makes logical sense . But no one does that anymore partially because other courts around the world have gotten a lot stronger and partially because of all the shady laws passed to aid in the war on terror . Said a dude that teaches comparative and international law at the University of Chicago "It’s not surprising, given our foreign policy in the last decade or so, that American influence should be declining . The diminished reputation of the United States in some parts of the world is in part a consequence of the administration’s unpopularity around the world. Foreign courts are less apt to justify their decisions with citations to cases from a nation unpopular with their domestic audience." Read into that whatever you wish . Now as long as I'm talking about boring non-sex , non-pop culture , non-wrestling , non-bad joke stuff I have another question - which I will preface as saying this is not about Trump . I mean I hate Trump but I don't want this to turn into a political thing . You know amongst the three people that comment on this blog and probably agree with me . I know about as much about impeachment as I do about the 11th amendment but what I do understand is that I think you have to have committed a crime to be impeached . Andrew Johnson for violating some law I also don't understand , Richard Nixon for obstruction of justice , abuse of power and contempt of Congress and Billy Clinton for getting a hummer , I mean perjury . But is there a way to remove a president from office who hasn't committed any crime ? Again , this is not about Trump , but if we elected some smooth-talking con-man who bamboozled us all and had NO ability or interest in executing the duties of the office of the president is there some way he could be removed from office ? Like if there was some kind of MASSIVE mix up and I was elected president and for some reason refused to resign what method (besides murder of course) could be used to get rid of me . Or would you be condemned to 4 years of basically having no POTUS .  Is this my worst post ever ? No . Not by a long shot . Speaking of (not really) the other day someone told me to "go pound sand" which isn't an expression you hear much these days . I was curious as to it's meaning as I often am with expressions . The original saying was "S/he doesn't have enough sense to pound sand down a rat-hole" as filling a rat-hole with sand was a smart thing to do . But as time passed it morphed to just "go pound sand" as in you are wasting my time go do something useful . Then as more time passed it was implied that "go pound sand" meant to do so up your ass and was more of an obviate (is that even a word , am I using it right ? ) insult . So pounding sand used to be a good thing - a sensible task undertaken by a person wise in the ways of rodent control - until it became a bad thing , a simple act of futility - and then morphed into a painful act of self-abasement . If that ain't a metaphor for life I don't know what is . Which I don't . Putting first by putting employees first, immediately after prioritizing fiscal responsibilities and leveraging profitability towards exceeding by empowering our employees to put (and themselves) first, in a diverse and respectful environment of only those that come first, first. |
||||
|
In other news my conversion to the dark side is complete - the other I thought to myself "I think I like Dr. Pepper 10 more than regular Dr. Pepper" . Once you accept the dark path you may believe there is no longer any need to justify your actions . Putting clients first by putting employees first, immediately after prioritizing fiscal responsibilities and leveraging profitability towards exceeding by empowering our employees to put clients (and themselves) first, in a diverse and respectful environment of only those that come first, first.
| |||
|
Check out the 25th amendment When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
| |||
9/27/2017 12:37 am |
My understanding of the what is an impeachable offence is really vague, The constitution says "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" but leaves what constitutes such to the House, by a majority vote with the Senate acting as a form of grand jury to determine his guilt. How ever my understanding of the exact process is possibly as limited as your own Not the Whole Truth but the truth that I can see.
| |||
|
i don't think most other countries would even ask us to pound sand for them now. however they still take money and arms. You cannot conceive the many without the one.
| |||
|
40Deuce replies on 9/27/2017 6:45 pm: Seems to mostly cover the line of succession but there is a bit about being unable to perform the duties of the office - although it's unclear who gets to determine that Find a source that discussed Section 4 in depth. The VP and cabinet can declare the Pres unfit. When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.
|
Become a member to create a blog
