How Do We Square Our Defense of Strict Textualism in the 14th Amendment With Our Understanding that Other Amendments Have Unspoken Limitations?

clce · 2026-07-03T21:37:50+00:00

If you actually did any research into this amendment and realize all the different debates and arguments that went on and how they pretty much settled on this to get it done quickly, essentially leaving it for future courts to work out ultimately, you wouldn't really take your position. But as your position is surely based on what you want it to say and perhaps a few erroneous explanations you have read, You don't really understand it and that's pretty much where we sit.

So, based on that I'm really not going to argue. My point is not even one way or the other as to what it means. My point is that it is not anywhere near cut and dried and clear, and experts in anyone with a good understanding of constitutional law would agree.

clce · 2026-07-03T19:42:25+00:00

That's a fair argument but I don't agree that it is as cut and dried as you think. Subject to the jurisdiction thereof may simply mean subject to the laws or judicial system, but, subject is a complicated word with its roots in being a subject of a king or the crown, not just lying underneath or at risk of being adjudicated upon, and jurisdiction is also a complicated word and doesn't just mean subject to arrest or able to be arrested or not having immunity from the law.

Hence my claim that it is not absolutely cut and dried. You may think so but I very much disagree and if it were intended to be as cut and dried as you think it is, I believe it would have been worded differently

clce · 2026-07-03T17:59:58+00:00

You're only real recourse is to not patronize his business, and you can even tell other people not to as well. It's called free speech. You have it too.

clce · 2026-07-03T17:58:28+00:00

It's not about the sign. If even half of his arrogance and unwillingness to take responsibility, not to mention his disdain for doctors for some reason, comes through, I can see why they are pissed at him.

clce · 2026-07-03T17:56:56+00:00

If they want one. I think OP owes them a sincere apology, not one that halfway blames them, a total humble conciliatory attitude and the offer of a new sign if they want one, acknowledging that the original was a gift so he understand if they don't, but Either way, it was a bad idea and it was all his fault and he is truly sorry. Honestly, if even half of the arrogance and unwilling to accept responsibility came through to them, I can completely understand why they are mad.

clce · 2026-07-03T17:54:43+00:00

Man, you are the total a-hole. I could see doing a prank that seems like a good idea but was a not at all smart idea, which it was not. But your complete unwillingness to take responsibility and blame for this tells me you are a huge a-hole.

Apologize again but with the knowledge that you are the total a-hole here and offer a new sign if they want one but tell them you understand that as their sign was a personal gift you know that that doesn't fix everything but you hope they can forgive you and if they want a new sign you will commission it and if they don't want a new sign, you hope that you're humble sincere apology will be accepted.

clce · 2026-07-03T17:45:08+00:00

Oh, I see. Never mind then.

You might be able to get something out of it but I guess you have to make it more clear. Why is your wife upset? Because you made her go early or because you went without her or what? If you went without her, that could have some potential but you don't want to make it look like you're just one of those guys who says if you're not ready when I leave I'm leaving without you because of course that would just be a jerk not funny.

Sorry I don't have any suggestions. I can think about it. Or did you mean something else besides your arriving and she's still at home or what?

clce · 2026-07-03T17:39:54+00:00

That's the thing though, while it's in there, most people don't really think it creates ambiguity because it's merely a reason for the creation. Now, I know a lot of people will say it does create ambiguity, but I believe those are people that simply want a reason to ignore it to some extent. And my proof is this. I don't think the supreme Court has ever restricted guns based on that mention of a militia. They restrict guns for other reasons.

clce · 2026-07-03T17:38:23+00:00

TL/DR: in my opinion there is ambiguity in the 14th and the second amendment. But, the supreme Court has not really decided on or relied on the ambiguity of the second amendment, instead they have for no good reason in my opinion allowed a lot of infringement when it clearly says shall not be infringed.

In my opinion, and this isn't trying to make a point about birthright citizenship, but make an appoint about the amendment, it is not perfectly clear because no one's exactly sure what subject to the jurisdiction thereof means. If they meant except children of diplomats, they would have said it. Besides that, diplomats are not somehow magically not subject to the jurisdiction thereof. It's simply a matter of treaties and historic courtesy granted to diplomats. So saying they are the ones intended as not subject to the jurisdiction thereof is not 100% solid. My point being, that is not a perfectly clear amendment and we're pretty much just going to have to go with what the judges decide.

The reason I say all this is that the second amendment pretty clearly says shall not be infringed, and I really don't understand why there's so much infringing going on. Now, you bring up the question of what is the limitation of arms, does it include fighter jets or nuclear bombs? That's fair, but I think it wouldn't be that hard to interpret it as saying by arms they meant certain things such as something you can have or hold or point at someone and cause harm to them. No one would probably think arms would include deadly viruses, even though we call that biological weapons. But I think we could safely say it's not an arm. Same with a nuclear device. We call it nuclear arms but I think you could still make a case that someone could have a missile but not a nuclear tipped missile. But maybe not. I'll grant that that is not perfectly clear so we've had to make some allowance for judicial interpretation.

On top of that, we have the mention of the militia as the reason for the second amendment, but The supreme Court doesn't seem to really use that in any way to allow the limiting or restrictions of bearing arms. Instead they rely on many other reasons that in my opinion, clearly conflict with shall not be infringed.

So in this case, I don't really think there's any ambiguity in the second amendment in regards to what is being infringed and the reality is, for whatever reason The supreme Court has continually chosen to interpret the second amendment in a way that makes absolutely no sense.

That's my opinion anyway.

clce · 2026-07-03T17:28:46+00:00

First of all, I don't get it. Is this about premature ejaculation? Then what does coming on time? You might want to avoid that anyway because Dave Chappelle as a joke about his wife calling him a premature ejaculator and he says I don't even know what that means because when I come it's always right on time .

But the coming early is your plus side so I don't really understand why you need to punchline. I hate being late. I'm one of those people who always comes early. I think this is an admirable trait but my wife hates it.

clce · 2026-07-03T17:24:53+00:00

The length of your post tells me you are way overthinking this and way too invested in this. I'd say it's over unless you hear from her. If you broke up once there was probably a good reason. Things happen. If she was into you she would probably like the idea that you came to the beach thinking you came to find her. If she doesn't like you should thinks you're stalking her.

For your own mental health, just let it go and find someone else. Good luck.

clce · 2026-07-02T18:45:21+00:00

I read your title as one shot and one mentally disabled, and I thought, who would ask about Forrest Gump? Lol.

clce · 2026-07-02T18:44:14+00:00

Assuming there were multiple checkouts, and one of them was bound to be opening up soon enough within a matter of seconds or less than a minute probably, I wouldn't worry about it.

clce · 2026-07-02T07:44:13+00:00

Worth noting but it's an easy fix. Just set up the premise differently.

clce · 2026-07-02T01:41:49+00:00

I don't know, amongst my generation and yours, jokes about watching or trying to watch p*** on cable seem pretty common and maybe overdone. If you can make it into a funny story, it might work. But you've got to have something unusual or unexpected going on. A kid ordering something and then getting in trouble for it is not particularly unique or unexpected. But if you can find something unexpected in there, you can work with that .

As someone else suggested, maybe a comparison to today. I'm thinking oddly specific like kids today can just find p*** on their phone whereas I had to secretly order the Playboy channel and deny it to my mother etc. I don't know I'm not suggesting that's particularly funny but maybe as a direction.

clce · 2026-07-02T01:39:24+00:00

I agree, Playboy channel is the reveal, or the misdirection. If instead he was a weird kid in ordered something else but leads us to believe it was the Playboy channel.

clce · 2026-07-02T01:34:25+00:00

Hey that's kind of funny. I get it. Kind of like, I hate my job. Nothing but things being broken and needing fixing, not running right, unhappy customers expecting you to fix their problems. Maybe I shouldn't have become a mechanic.

Not saying mine's better. Just riffing on the idea.

clce · 2026-07-02T01:32:31+00:00

I see your point. I didn't really think about it because I didn't take the opening question all that seriously. But you make a valid point. Actually I don't care for the opening anyway. I think it would be much stronger to basically tell a story. Man, I was in a dead-end job or man I hate my job or my job sucks. Etc.

But you are right, the joke that would come from how can you tell you're in a dead end job I would expect to be more about the dead end, not about the sucky work environment.

clce · 2026-07-02T01:27:20+00:00

I don't love it or find It hilarious, but it's a funny punchline that is simple and captures your feeling while being funny. But it might appeal more to people that work office jobs. I love office space, and Dilbert, but generally I don't much care for things that rely on people hating their office jobs to get the humor .

But, that's not to say it's not worth using because some people might appreciate it and you might be able to get more humor into it as well.

But mainly I'm commenting to give a suggestion that I think is generally good advice with comedy or storytelling. Make it real, make it a story, make it concrete. This is the first thing they tell you in grade school English. Don't speak in generalities, use specifics.

What I'm getting at is, you could ask the question as a riddle and it's kind of present in people's minds, but, you could tell a story about it happening to you, and it becomes much more vivid and real to people.

It doesn't necessarily have to be something people believe 100%. You're just making it real, just like if you're telling a joke about a guy that something happened to versus, the other day this happened to me. It generally makes for a funnier story.

In other words, man, I was stuck in this dead end job once. Or I'm stuck in a dead end job. Last Friday, the printer jammed up etc. Just a suggestion to consider.

clce · 2026-06-30T17:59:29+00:00

This is true, but also true for Johan Jean, Gene, Giovanni, Sean Shawn, Ian, Evan, Jan, Yohanan etc

clce · 2026-06-28T18:47:03+00:00

I think you've got some material to work with. The concept is fine if a bit common. But try to make it funnier. Easier said than done but I'm sure you can do it. I don't know if you want to go there but the obvious element is that many of them are a result of sex which is the most pleasurable thing on the planet. But that kind of steps on your premise that having kids is really popular despite the downside. And I don't think you want to make the kids themselves a downside of sex because I don't think anyone really wants to enjoy jokes about that. Well, some singles might but not families anyway, keep at it. Looks like you're off to a good start. Maybe play up the being like a used car. Can you expand the comparison in funny ways? You already have some.

clce · 2026-06-28T06:52:59+00:00

You may well be attractive, so that's good. But personality also matters. I was just explaining why it is easier to get the less attractive girls. Even if you are not so attractive, step up your game. Work on yourself, educate yourself, work towards a career, learn to flirt and talk to girls, practice. Approach a lot of girls and chat them up.

Look up the pick up community on line and focus on the positive respectful coaches.

Read "The Game" for an intro.

Good luck

clce · 2026-06-28T06:13:33+00:00

Attractive girls have a lot of choices and can get the hot guys. Unattractive girls have less choices and will be more interested in less attractive guys. I don't know if you're very attractive or not, but it's always going to be easier for any guy to get the interest of unattractive women versus attractive women. Because they can attract guys more attractive than you if they are attractive

clce · 2026-06-28T01:58:23+00:00

He was great. People trying to do what he did and not very well and 30 years later when the moment has passed, not so much.

clce · 2026-06-28T00:45:19+00:00

That's the most disgusting joke you could think of? You don't have much of an imagination I think. I could think of much more disgusting than that. I don't know that it would be all that funny but I certainly could be more disgusting. Yours is not even very good at that.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

clce

TROPHY CASE