United States Supreme Court to Decide the Constitutionality of the Law of Gravity
Chief Justice nominee, John Roberts, announced Saturday his intention to hear the case of Mookie v. Gravity just as soon as he is confirmed by the Senate and the high court resumes its session in October.
The case stems from a long-standing argument by Mookie Blackjack that gravity “is just plain wrong and there has to be some way to get around it”. Backed by the ACLU, Mr. Blackjack said in a statement, “I’m not necessarily against gravity; I just feel that we, as Americans, should have the right to choose to believe in it or not.”
Former Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, a staunch defender of gravity, as well as many other arcane “Laws of Nature”, repeatedly refused to allow the case to be heard based on the point that, “Gravity is a theory, not a law imposed by any branch of the U.S. government.”
Officials with The American Association of Physicists claim that if this law is overturned, it will no doubt have a staggering effect on the world as we know it. Said one such official, “…rain might decide to fall up. Instead of flailing on the ground, drunken people would float around in the air, unable to control themselves. Bicycles, babies and all manner of objects would float around, all willy-nilly like about the country.”
Mr. Blackjack has rebutted these claims, arguing that since this is a “natural” law, then non-sentient beings would have no choice but to obey it, while those of us with free-will would have the option to ignore it if we so choose.
You can bet the eyes and ears of the nation will be focused intently on this case as it unfolds. Proponents and opponents alike are mostly just happy that this issue will be decided once and for all, never to crop up again. That is, unless the public opinion on the issue continues to seesaw and the future make-up of the court is changed. Can anyone say “Roe v. Wade”?
The case stems from a long-standing argument by Mookie Blackjack that gravity “is just plain wrong and there has to be some way to get around it”. Backed by the ACLU, Mr. Blackjack said in a statement, “I’m not necessarily against gravity; I just feel that we, as Americans, should have the right to choose to believe in it or not.”
Former Chief Justice, William Rehnquist, a staunch defender of gravity, as well as many other arcane “Laws of Nature”, repeatedly refused to allow the case to be heard based on the point that, “Gravity is a theory, not a law imposed by any branch of the U.S. government.”
Officials with The American Association of Physicists claim that if this law is overturned, it will no doubt have a staggering effect on the world as we know it. Said one such official, “…rain might decide to fall up. Instead of flailing on the ground, drunken people would float around in the air, unable to control themselves. Bicycles, babies and all manner of objects would float around, all willy-nilly like about the country.”
Mr. Blackjack has rebutted these claims, arguing that since this is a “natural” law, then non-sentient beings would have no choice but to obey it, while those of us with free-will would have the option to ignore it if we so choose.
You can bet the eyes and ears of the nation will be focused intently on this case as it unfolds. Proponents and opponents alike are mostly just happy that this issue will be decided once and for all, never to crop up again. That is, unless the public opinion on the issue continues to seesaw and the future make-up of the court is changed. Can anyone say “Roe v. Wade”?
posted by Duffy Cox at 2:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home