SCOTUS Says 'No'. Smash and Dash Time!

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-20 08:00pm

Ten Commandments plea rejected

I for one gleefully and greatfully volunteer my services to personally remove and/or demolish this two ton mockery to our religious freedom. Three cheers for our Constitution!

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-08-20 08:08pm

Their plan to prevent the force removal of the thing involves kneeling a having a prayer session at the doors of the courthouse. I suggest you take the window or better yet rent a snowplow.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-20 08:11pm

Sea Skimmer wrote:Their plan to prevent the force removal of the thing involves kneeling a having a prayer session at the doors of the courthouse.

I'm sure their prayers alone will be enough.

Grand Admiral Thrawn · Post by **Grand Admiral Thrawn** » 2003-08-20 08:14pm

"I think if you stand for this country, this whole country was founded on 'In God we trust.'

...Which was added in the 1950s, not the 1770s...

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2003-08-20 09:18pm

The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-20 09:34pm

Drooling Iguana wrote:The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.

Ah, another anti-American snipe.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-08-20 11:27pm

Ah, another anti-American snipe.

Pretty clever, though. What if America is just the ultimate tax fraud, and everything else just kinda snowballed from there?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-08-21 12:36am

Durran Korr wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.
Ah, another anti-American snipe.

I don't know. Look at the Founding Fathers, it's closer to the truth than you think.

****

Glad to see the Fundies get their comeuppances. The monument was clearly out of line and it's about time it's hauled down. Donate it to a church or whatever but get it out of the fucking court.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-21 12:47am

I don't know. Look at the Founding Fathers, it's closer to the truth than you think.

A desire to throw off the British tax burden was no doubt part of the motivation to secede from the Empire, but it is a terribly gross simplification to call the American Revolution a tax dodge. The southern states, for example, were induced to revolt primarily by British land policy, specifically the Quebec Act.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-08-21 12:51am

Drooling Iguana wrote:The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.

All King George had to do was give us represenation in Parliament, and we'd be a happy, healthy member of Her Majesty's commonwealth to this day.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2003-08-21 12:53am

RedImperator wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.
All King George had to do was give us represenation in Parliament, and we'd be a happy, healthy member of Her Majesty's commonwealth to this day.

A recurring theme throughout American history. All Mexico had to do was give Texas statehood and Texans today would be paying taxes to Mexico City instead of Washington.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-08-21 01:15am

RedImperator wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.
All King George had to do was give us represenation in Parliament, and we'd be a happy, healthy member of Her Majesty's commonwealth to this day.

Well, actually, if that had happened, the British Empire would still exist, as instead of moving towards decentralization, it would have moved towards a centralized government--instead of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, getting their own Parliaments, they would have gotten representation in the UK Parliament. Most of North America, and Australia and New Zealand, would still be part of Britain, and would be run from London, sending representatives to Westminster.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-21 01:43am

Durran Korr wrote:A recurring theme throughout American history. All Mexico had to do was give Texas statehood and Texans today would be paying taxes to Mexico City instead of Washington.

Actually no, that wasn't why Texas left. Mexico said "Texas, its bout time you got rid of your slaves" and Texas said "Whoa whoa whoa, back up a sec, you want us to WHAT?"

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2003-08-21 02:41am

Well much you guys' dismay. The Federal judge will simply levy a fine on Alabama untill this matter is decided in the ISC. So no Federal marshals comming in with tractors.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2003-08-21 02:41am

I mean USSC

Knife · Post by **Knife** » 2003-08-21 02:54am

Drooling Iguana wrote:The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.

I find that hilarious.

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-08-21 07:30am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
RedImperator wrote:
Drooling Iguana wrote:The country was founded as an elaborate tax dodge, not as a theocracy.
All King George had to do was give us represenation in Parliament, and we'd be a happy, healthy member of Her Majesty's commonwealth to this day.
Well, actually, if that had happened, the British Empire would still exist, as instead of moving towards decentralization, it would have moved towards a centralized government--instead of Canada, Australia, New Zealand, etc, getting their own Parliaments, they would have gotten representation in the UK Parliament. Most of North America, and Australia and New Zealand, would still be part of Britain, and would be run from London, sending representatives to Westminster.

Which would have really scared Napoleon...

Not to mention 1916....

hmm, interesting thought what if Brittania never broke up, damn that force could possibly rival other alt.history forces for galactic dominace...

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-08-21 09:21am

While “Taxation without representation" was a nice sound bite the colonial rabble-rousers didn't want representation in Parliament (due to it being corrupt, unfeeling to the colonials, or simply because they wanted power for themselves) they wanted autonomy.

The mid level merchants wanted a freer hand in their trade, the prospectors (the other main occupations) were annoyed about Parliament creating the royal proclamation line, in essence drawing a line on the map and saying everything else belonged to the Indians and just about everybody was upset that the British didn't crack down on the "filthy Papists" in Quebec.

In the end elements in the colonies saw an opportunity to gain power for themselves, ceased it and then got away with it.

As for a greater federal British Empire, such a thing was proposed but it was a little too late in the day if it had come earlier Britain would comprise of about 150 million inhabitants (Britain, Canada, South Africa, Australian and New Zealand) it is also probably that under such circumstances we would have held onto the Empire for somewhat longer and the commonwealth would have been stronger/more binding and Africa be something other than a hellhole.
Such a union would still be out stripped by the US but with the commonwealth giving mutual trade and defence its possible the Empire could contest the US’s position as top dog.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-08-21 12:47pm

That's ok, Darkling. We all have dreams. There, there.

CelesKnight · Post by **CelesKnight** » 2003-08-21 01:29pm

Such a union would still be out stripped by the US but with the commonwealth giving mutual trade and defence its possible the Empire could contest the US’s position as top dog.

Humans have an amazing ability to NOT work towards their long term best interests. I suspect that if the US colonies were allowed into Parliment, Parliment would have blocked westward expantion. I don't know the precidents for this, but I suspect that they would have also tried to slowdown the industrialiation of the US to prevent the islands from having to compete with cheep american products. I suspect they would also be more hesitant to let the US take/buy territories from other countries.

By 1900, my expectation is that we end up with a North America where Russia still controls Alaska and perhaps more of the northwest, Britian "controls" Canada, the the Northeastern US, and the Southeast. Spain or Mexico still controls the Southwest. I'm not certain about the Midwest. Presumably Britian would take it after defeating Napolean. And each of those areas would be economically weaker than they were in our timeline.

I wonder what becomes of the rest of the Americas without the Monroe doctrine?

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-08-21 02:01pm

HemlockGrey wrote:That's ok, Darkling. We all have dreams. There, there.

Thanks, it's nice to know somebody cares, if only I could secure enough cash for that time machine

.

Humans have an amazing ability to NOT work towards their long term best interests. I suspect that if the US colonies were allowed into Parliment, Parliment would have blocked westward expantion. I don't know the precidents for this, but I suspect that they would have also tried to slowdown the industrialiation of the US to prevent the islands from having to compete with cheep american products.

It really depends how much representation the colonies got in parliament but you are correct that westward expansion and colonial industry would be stifled (a reduction in immigration would also be likely).

I don't think Russia would control more of America though and as for the rest of the Americas, they end up pretty much the same since it was the Royal navy that effectively imposed the Monroe doctrine and South America was essentially a British economic vassal.

I prefer timelines where the revolution happens, most of my grand schemes for Imperial domination of the world oddly enough revolve around Texas

.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2003-08-21 02:50pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:I mean USSC

The usual abbreviation is SCOTUS, by the way.

Wicked Pilot · Post by **Wicked Pilot** » 2003-08-21 06:24pm

EmperorSolo51 wrote:Well much you guys' dismay. The Federal judge will simply levy a fine on Alabama untill this matter is decided in the ISC. So no Federal marshals comming in with tractors.

Nope, the eight other justices have signed to order to have it removed. It's coming out, and I imagine some kind of heavy equipment will be involved.

EmperorSolo51 · Post by **EmperorSolo51** » 2003-08-21 06:40pm

Wicked Pilot wrote:
EmperorSolo51 wrote:Well much you guys' dismay. The Federal judge will simply levy a fine on Alabama untill this matter is decided in the ISC. So no Federal marshals comming in with tractors.
Nope, the eight other justices have signed to order to have it removed. It's coming out, and I imagine some kind of heavy equipment will be involved.

True, however this will be going to the Supreme court.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2003-08-21 07:11pm

Thanks, it's nice to know somebody cares, if only I could secure enough cash for that time machine

Keep in mind that *my* dream involves an America that unquestionably rules the world.

[/code]