Posted: 4/12/2013 9:23:43 AM EDT
|
How would people react if congress acted to repeal the 3rd amendment? Would they be skeptical or would they say, "we don't need it anymore. It's dated and there's no reason any soldier would *need* to be quartered in somebody's house?"
I've thought about it a bit lately and, while there are parts of the later amendments that I don't fully agree with (and I think the clause about being born on US soil is certainly dated, considering the ease with which it is to get onto US soil), I would consider activism to repeal the 3rd as dangerous as any other of the bill of rights. If I were married with kids, I wouldn't want some soldier, at somebody's whim or decree, staying with my wife and kids while I was at work. |
|
Quoted:
How would people react if congress acted to repeal the 3rd amendment? Would they be skeptical or would they say, "we don't need it anymore. It's dated and there's no reason any soldier would *need* to be quartered in somebody's house?" I've thought about it a bit lately and, while there are parts of the later amendments that I don't fully agree with (and I think the clause about being born on US soil is certainly dated, considering the ease with which it is to get onto US soil), I would consider activism to repeal the 3rd as dangerous as any other of the bill of rights. If I were married with kids, I wouldn't want some soldier, at somebody's whim or decree, staying with my wife and kids while I was at work. 3rd amendment = right to privacy. Soldier in your home = 1984 orwell. |
|
It's a right that has never been respected when shit gets serious. People hear all the time about how houses were "requisitioned" for use as barracks and hospitals during the War Between the States and the War of 1812. Whenever this right has actually be needed the most, our military has ignored it with as much impunity as the current administration has exhibited towards the 2nd Amendment. What would you expect from a military and government that has sought to instigate famine, create millions of internally displaced persons, and destroy entire cities to ensure that their victims would remain in "the land of the free"?
It's an important right, to be secure in your person and your property from military seizure. It is nothing short of a crime against humanity to steal a family's home and food to make civilians homeless and starving for the betterment of soldiers. But it is a right that our government has never given even the slightest of fucks about. And if war ever comes back to one or all of the American States, the government will continue to ignore it - just like every other government that has ever been. |
|
Quoted:
If we didn't have it, the govt could quarter someone with you to spy on you and report results. It is very important to freedom! The government can't spy on us, remember? We're the government! Unless its GWB trying to listen in on terrorists, in which case warrantless wire taps are going to kill our great-great grandchildren right through the time continuum.... |
|
Quoted:
How would people react if congress acted to repeal the 3rd amendment? Would they be skeptical or would they say, "we don't need it anymore. It's dated and there's no reason any soldier would *need* to be quartered in somebody's house?" I've thought about it a bit lately and, while there are parts of the later amendments that I don't fully agree with (and I think the clause about being born on US soil is certainly dated, considering the ease with which it is to get onto US soil), I would consider activism to repeal the 3rd as dangerous as any other of the bill of rights. If I were married with kids, I wouldn't want some soldier, at somebody's whim or decree, staying with my wife and kids while I was at work. I feel sure if we were having to house soldiers, you would not be going to work. No one would. |
|
Quoted:
It's a right that has never been respected when shit gets serious. People hear all the time about how houses were "requisitioned" for use as barracks and hospitals during the War Between the States and the War of 1812. Whenever this right has actually be needed the most, our military has ignored it with as much impunity as the current administration has exhibited towards the 2nd Amendment. What would you expect from a military and government that has sought to instigate famine, create millions of internally displaced persons, and destroy entire cities to ensure that their victims would remain in "the land of the free"? It's an important right, to be secure in your person and your property from military seizure. It is nothing short of a crime against humanity to steal a family's home and food to make civilians homeless and starving for the betterment of soldiers. But it is a right that our government has never given even the slightest of fucks about. And if war ever comes back to one or all of the American States, the government will continue to ignore it - just like every other government that has ever been. That's not what the 3rd protects against. The government has always had the right to seize property - eminent domain, etc. What the third amendment bars is forcing families to *quarter* troops - provide sleeping quarters, food, services. Quartering soldiers in with the populace is a classic means of dealing with insurrection, while transferring part of the cost burden of an occupation onto the populace. It's really hard to plan sedition or guerrilla tactics when there's an enemy soldier in the next room all the time. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
How would people react if congress acted to repeal the 3rd amendment? Would they be skeptical or would they say, "we don't need it anymore. It's dated and there's no reason any soldier would *need* to be quartered in somebody's house?" I've thought about it a bit lately and, while there are parts of the later amendments that I don't fully agree with (and I think the clause about being born on US soil is certainly dated, considering the ease with which it is to get onto US soil), I would consider activism to repeal the 3rd as dangerous as any other of the bill of rights. If I were married with kids, I wouldn't want some soldier, at somebody's whim or decree, staying with my wife and kids while I was at work. 3rd amendment = right to privacy. Soldier in your home = 1984 orwell. I've made this argument many times with respect to "pervasive surveillance" - CCTV cameras all over the place, GPS tracking of individual cars, etc. The writers of the constitution clearly did not want the government in our shit 24 hours a day. But every time I bring it up that line of argument gets shit on by people. |
|
Right to privacy
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484- The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. It cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state. Limitation on Executive Power Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer 343 U.S. 579, 644- Justice Robert H. Jackson's concurring opinion cites the Third Amendment as providing evidence of the Framers' intent to constrain executive power even during wartime: "[t]hat military powers of the Commander in Chief were not to supersede representative government of internal affairs seems obvious from the Constitution and from elementary American history. Time out of mind, and even now in many parts of the world, a military commander can seize private housing to shelter his troops. Not so, however, in the United States, for the Third Amendment says...[E]ven in war time, his seizure of needed military housing must be authorized by Congress." Tenant rights Engblom v. Carey- In 1979, prison officials in New York organized a strike; they were evicted from their prison facility residences, which were reassigned to members of the National Guard who had temporarily taken their place as prison guards. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled: (1) that the term owner in the Third Amendment includes tenants (paralleling similar cases regarding the Fourth Amendment, governing search and seizure), (2) National Guard troops count as soldiers for the purposes of the Third Amendment, and (3) that the Third Amendment is incorporated (that is, that it applies to the states) by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Taken from wiki. I say keep it. |
|
Quoted:
How bout we not touch ANY of them ?k In fact; new rule: any discussion about repealing, amending or otherwise Fucking up any of the amendments, we drag you behind a truck through the streets of Detroit. wait what about 16 and 17 i would happily do without either. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It's a right that has never been respected when shit gets serious. People hear all the time about how houses were "requisitioned" for use as barracks and hospitals during the War Between the States and the War of 1812. Whenever this right has actually be needed the most, our military has ignored it with as much impunity as the current administration has exhibited towards the 2nd Amendment. What would you expect from a military and government that has sought to instigate famine, create millions of internally displaced persons, and destroy entire cities to ensure that their victims would remain in "the land of the free"? It's an important right, to be secure in your person and your property from military seizure. It is nothing short of a crime against humanity to steal a family's home and food to make civilians homeless and starving for the betterment of soldiers. But it is a right that our government has never given even the slightest of fucks about. And if war ever comes back to one or all of the American States, the government will continue to ignore it - just like every other government that has ever been. That's not what the 3rd protects against. The government has always had the right to seize property - eminent domain, etc. What the third amendment bars is forcing families to *quarter* troops - provide sleeping quarters, food, services. Quartering soldiers in with the populace is a classic means of dealing with insurrection, while transferring part of the cost burden of an occupation onto the populace. It's really hard to plan sedition or guerrilla tactics when there's an enemy soldier in the next room all the time. really? on the other hand, it seems like it would place lots of opportunity for revolt right in your living room. |
| The French king Louis XIV had an army of 400,000 soldiers, most of them quartered with families. This kept the people in check and caused many protestants to "convert" to Catholicism because the king had ordered the soldiers to make life rough for protestants. Occupying armies have also often quartered their soldiers in the homes of the civilian population. It is basically an abuse of government or military power that, even though now rarely employed, could still occur today. |
|
Well the word quarter had a different meaning when the bill of rights was written than it does today. Quarter then meant the British soldier, would take your house, your wife, and daughters for their uses. They would shoot you, and you sons, or for you into slavery, then shoot you. Take your crops and cattle for food, then burn everything to the ground when they were done.
Today those acts would be forbid by other laws, it's clearly out of date and needs to be repealed. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How would people react if congress acted to repeal the 3rd amendment? Would they be skeptical or would they say, "we don't need it anymore. It's dated and there's no reason any soldier would *need* to be quartered in somebody's house?" I've thought about it a bit lately and, while there are parts of the later amendments that I don't fully agree with (and I think the clause about being born on US soil is certainly dated, considering the ease with which it is to get onto US soil), I would consider activism to repeal the 3rd as dangerous as any other of the bill of rights. If I were married with kids, I wouldn't want some soldier, at somebody's whim or decree, staying with my wife and kids while I was at work. 3rd amendment = right to privacy. Soldier in your home = 1984 orwell. I've made this argument many times with respect to "pervasive surveillance" - CCTV cameras all over the place, GPS tracking of individual cars, etc. The writers of the constitution clearly did not want the government in our shit 24 hours a day. But every time I bring it up that line of argument gets shit on by people. No, people don't shit on arguments. Assholes do. Assholes shit on everything. |
|
Quoted:
How bout we not touch ANY of them ?k In fact; new rule: any discussion about repealing, amending or otherwise Fucking up any of the amendments, we drag you behind a truck through the streets of Detroit. That is a clear violation of the 6th and the 8th amendments. If you didn't catch it in my original post, I was examining another amendment that is not surrounded by controversy and my question was in regards to the vigilance with which it would be defended. In examining this, I realized that my obsession with protecting the 2nd would carry on to the rest of the constitution if it were to be attacked as the second is falling under fire today. In other words, through introspection, I have come to the conclusion that I am not a gun nut, but I am a strong supporter of our constitution as it was ratified and it's being attacked at its strongest point of defense, our second amendment. |
|
Quoted:
 will the quatering look anything like this ?
http://media.moddb.com/images/groups/1/6/5425/20111217713531849.jpg Ok, you convinced me. 
Seriously though, in times of real emergencies, can't troops station themselves in your home? |
|
Quoted:
How would people react if congress acted to repeal the 3rd amendment? Would they be skeptical or would they say, "we don't need it anymore. It's dated and there's no reason any soldier would *need* to be quartered in somebody's house?" I've thought about it a bit lately and, while there are parts of the later amendments that I don't fully agree with (and I think the clause about being born on US soil is certainly dated, considering the ease with which it is to get onto US soil), I would consider activism to repeal the 3rd as dangerous as any other of the bill of rights. If I were married with kids, I wouldn't want some soldier, at somebody's whim or decree, staying with my wife and kids while I was at work. The 14th has been all twisted up. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 had just granted citizenship to all persons born in the United States if they were not subject to a foreign power. The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted this principle enshrined into the Constitution to protect the new Civil Rights Act from being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court and to prevent a future Congress from altering it by a mere majority vote. Notice the bold? The offspring of foreigners, tourists, aliens and diplomats did not acquire Naturalization/Citizenship just because they happened to be in this country at the time of birth. |
|
Quoted: Hey, there's a silver lining everywhere if you look hard enough. Who would have thought someone could have come up with a use for Detroit?Quoted: How bout we not touch ANY of them ?k In fact; new rule: any discussion about repealing, amending or otherwise Fucking up any of the amendments, we drag you behind a truck through the streets of Detroit. Even worse, drop him off on a street in Detroit. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: How bout we not touch ANY of them ?k In fact; new rule: any discussion about repealing, amending or otherwise Fucking up any of the amendments, we drag you behind a truck through the streets of Detroit. We should toss the 16th. +1, and the 17th along with it |
|
Quoted:
just dismiss the entire Constitution and lets get this thing on. I am sick and fucking tired of watching our country spin slowly down the drain. we are only delaying the inevitable This is the most dangerous thing about "getting things on." Any and all parties involved in any sort of conflict must adhere to the sole objective of defending the constitution and nothing more or we will see the return of the guillotine, ethnic purges, and, ultimately, a dictatorship. If you think this country is spinning down the drain now, wait until you see local warlords warring over territories with foreign powers vying for resources and forming alliances. This nation is like a car moving down a paved road quickly with the rear-end a little loose. We need to regain traction and continue on the high speed road that we're on and not spin off the pavement to fight the wilderness again. Look at what humanity has accomplished in the past 250 years as a result of the constitution vs. the rest of human history. And it was ALL done here in America. There have been tyrants throughout the history of the United States and none have succeeded yet. There is nothing wrong with the constitution and dismissing it is the worst possible thing we could ever do. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How would people react if congress acted to repeal the 3rd amendment? Would they be skeptical or would they say, "we don't need it anymore. It's dated and there's no reason any soldier would *need* to be quartered in somebody's house?" I've thought about it a bit lately and, while there are parts of the later amendments that I don't fully agree with (and I think the clause about being born on US soil is certainly dated, considering the ease with which it is to get onto US soil), I would consider activism to repeal the 3rd as dangerous as any other of the bill of rights. If I were married with kids, I wouldn't want some soldier, at somebody's whim or decree, staying with my wife and kids while I was at work. 3rd amendment = right to privacy. Soldier in your home = 1984 orwell. I've made this argument many times with respect to "pervasive surveillance" - CCTV cameras all over the place, GPS tracking of individual cars, etc. The writers of the constitution clearly did not want the government in our shit 24 hours a day. But every time I bring it up that line of argument gets shit on by people. I buy that argument 100%. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
just dismiss the entire Constitution and lets get this thing on. I am sick and fucking tired of watching our country spin slowly down the drain. we are only delaying the inevitable This is the most dangerous thing about "getting things on." Any and all parties involved in any sort of conflict must adhere to the sole objective of defending the constitution and nothing more or we will see the return of the guillotine, ethnic purges, and, ultimately, a dictatorship. If you think this country is spinning down the drain now, wait until you see local warlords warring over territories with foreign powers vying for resources and forming alliances. This nation is like a car moving down a paved road quickly with the rear-end a little loose. We need to regain traction and continue on the high speed road that we're on and not spin off the pavement to fight the wilderness again. Look at what humanity has accomplished in the past 250 years as a result of the constitution vs. the rest of human history. And it was ALL done here in America. There have been tyrants throughout the history of the United States and none have succeeded yet. There is nothing wrong with the constitution and dismissing it is the worst possible thing we could ever do. The bold. This is the ONLY reason we should ever take up arms to overthrow our government and in my opinion they are practically forcing us to go this route sooner rather than later. They are destroying this country. Idiots. |
|
It is interesting that this thread should come up. I took some time after reading this earlier to reflect on it, and it is almost to a letter the persons whom I would most likely consider gleeful and willful agents of the State who use such an coy counterargument when jokingly retorting any arguments about gun control or reform of the second amendment. They will without a moment's hesitation make a joke about quartering troops in someone's home as being the next line of assault. |
|
Quoted: It is interesting that this thread should come up. I took some time after reading this earlier to reflect on it, and it is almost to a letter the persons whom I would most likely consider gleeful and willful agents of the State who use such an coy counterargument when jokingly retorting any arguments about gun control or reform of the second amendment. They will without a moment's hesitation make a joke about quartering troops in someone's home as being the next line of assault. "Well, it is technically uncle sugar's house, right? Didn't you just refinance w/ Fannie Mae? Think how much money the gov't would save if they distributed all those soldiers to nice homes like yours. And we know they'd be well fed and cared for on your family's monthly food budget. You could live your gun-control fantasy! I'm sure those pesky 1st and 4th amendments wouldn't matter much to you then either, with a squad of armed marines recording everything you say as they root through your shit. I think you just solved the debt crisis by cutting military spending -- genius!" |
|
More to the point of the very literal interpretation - it is the symbolic gesture that there shall be no representative forcibly held into your residence without just cause, which eases into the 4th nicely. I have my own concerns about what happens when there is a "public housing" crisis in America, but that is for another time. Comrade Clinton has played his hand on that years ago. ETA - the BOR should have NO adjustments made to it. They are JUST fine. I find a great deal that has been mucked up with American in what has been done with the balance of the Amendments. |