-
Supreme Court Ruling Noël v Mommy
- Nov 23, 2008 at 6:14 PM
- By
- Comments (15) Total Views (489) Everyone can see this journal post.
On the afternoon of Novermber 23, 2008 Noël claims that her Mommy did knowingly and willfully attempt to impose a nap by means of rocking and singing lullabies.
Noël argues that the afternoon nap rule is unconstitutional as applied to her because refusing a nap is protected "symbolic speech" within the First Amendment. Her argument is that the freedom of expression which the First Amendment guarantees includes all modes of "communication of ideas by conduct," and that her conduct of refusing to nap is within this definition because she did it in "demonstration against sleeping in her crib."
It is the contention of the appellee Mommy that Noël's failure to nap creates a clear and present danger of overtiredness and crankiness that she has a right to prevent [341 U.S. 494, 504].
We have concluded that the finding that there was a sufficient danger to warrant the application of such a nap was justified and that the judges treatment of the issue was correct.
Comments:
Man those freaking babies always abusing the 1rst amendment and takin' people to court. ;)
I had nap too....I'm all FOR that ruling!
Thank you for setting this precedent. Norah didn't nap today and I feared I wouldn't have a leg to stand on when I took her to court. Her not napping violates my 8th Amendment rights and subjects me to cruel and unusual punishment in the form of listening to her whine, moan, screech, cry, and howl.
**GIGGLE!** Love this!
Can we now take up the case of Mom VS. Lantz whereas Lantz concludes that loss of privileges including but not limited to television, video games, cell phone, home phone, guitar, friends and any fresh air and sunshine outside of school hours is cruel and unusual punishment. Mom imposed this sentence upon Lantz's failure to do any school work or homework and bringing home a rotten mid-grading period progress report. Lantz knew that aforementioned punishment was possible so he fooled around and goofed off with full intent of neglecting his school work.
What say ye, Ladies and Gentlemen of the court?
Can we now take up the case of Mom VS. Lantz whereas Lantz concludes that loss of privileges including but not limited to television, video games, cell phone, home phone, guitar, friends and any fresh air and sunshine outside of school hours is cruel and unusual punishment. Mom imposed this sentence upon Lantz's failure to do any school work or homework and bringing home a rotten mid-grading period progress report. Lantz knew that aforementioned punishment was possible so he fooled around and goofed off with full intent of neglecting his school work.
What say ye, Ladies and Gentlemen of the court?
I concur with the ruling.......punishment was noted beforehand and thus is the consequence. Cruel and unusual? NAY! Fits the crime......
I bet it's terribly inconvenient to you for your daughter to be so well-read and knowledgeable.
See? This is what comes of all that UN "Rights of the Child" business.
Watch out mommies. LOL...
When her Daddy found out about the ruling he said it should be overturned because according to the Sixth Amendment she was entitled to a trial by jury of her siblings and for him to act as her defense attorney.
Already a member? Click here to log in
Meet jessicasmom1
This Pennsylvania mom of a 12-year-old girl wishes her daughter's father was still alive to see his little girl all grown up now.
Lol. I am all for imposing naps to avoid cranky and overtired babies and children.
- acrogodess
Message Friend Invite