The question came before the Court today: Is the Hundred Acre Wood sovereign, or a mere instrumentality? The justices divided on the question in opinions delivered orally, as follows:
Owl, J. The presuppositions of our constitutional schema presuppose a certain dignitary majesty in the smaller, though no less unimportant, sovereignties propping up and surrounding, which is to say, constituting, the larger. Ascertaining the proper ratiociniatory processes appropriate to questions of such magnamitude, one is compelled to the conclusion, if not impaled upon it, that the Hundred Acre Wood is not a mere corporation, province, or instrumentality but is, in fact, sovereign unto itself, as itself, with its self's own dignitariety.
As we have reiterated previously, and on other occasions, one cannot gainsay the immemorial postulate that a "substantial portion of the ... primary sovereignty, together with the dignity and essential attributes inhering in that status" have been reserved to the Hundred Acre Wood.
Although the Hundred Acre Wood is not, technically, a state, and is in fact but a small haven from the oppressive hand of that hegemonic omnipresence that broods over us, there are those who love it. A dignatariety born of such love cannot be gainsaid.
In matters of state sovereignty, we do not mortify ourselves upon constitutional text but rather go directly to the heart of the matter, which is to say, to wit, and altogether, what the text would say were it more agreeable than it is. And disagreeable text being, in the strictest sense of the term, not agreeable, it cannot be, in any sense, binding on those who, with it, disagree. The truth of this proposition is, to those of discerning ratiociniatory processes, self evident, and we hold it, if not behold it, to be so.
Of the many virtues of this method, its convenience will perhaps be most evident and is, in any event, sufficient. The Hundred Acre Wood ought to be a state, and no doubt would have been one had it existed at the Foundling. We take this opportunity to rectify what might be called, with only a large injustice, this scrivener's error.
Being a state, the Hundred Acre Wood is sovereign over and unto itself, as itself, with all the dignity its self can muster, and it retains, unto itself, "the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty."
Being called upon by the Constitution to assist the State, as the Hundred Acre Wood now is, in its dignitary quest, we find that its immunity is sovereign and, being so, is immune against other sovereigns, this being the condition of immunity in its sovereignty. Such has universally and always been recognized to be the case, if only of late.
The plaintiff, therefore, not being sovereign, as the Hundred Acre Wood most certainly has become, is not immune from its immunity and therefore, as a consequence, and as needs must be, in the order and course of things, with all process being due, and cetera, loses.
Eeyore, C.J. Usually, I don't say much. Don't need to. This writing business. Pencils and what-not. Overrated, if you ask me. Silly stuff. Nothing in it. Doesn't matter. Going to win; going to lose. That's the way it is. All the rest is just words. But, I think, Piglet is wrong. Is now anyway.
Kanga, J. States protect people. That's what they do. States are like pouches people fit into. Warm. And comfortable. Just the right size. A State could never do anything bad to you. That's why I like them. Because they're good. The Hundred Acre Wood protects us. It's nice, too, like a state. So it is a state. Because it's nice.
Rabbit, J. (1) I don't understand these people! What is wrong with them? I keep telling them and telling them and telling them and they Just Don't Get It:
DON'T EAT THE HUNNY; YOU CAN'T EAT THE HUNNY; THE HUNNY BELONGS TO THE STATE AND YOU CAN'T TAKE IT!!!
Do they listen? …