3 ms·
It's not exactly who but if, per the third amendment. Also, I don't see how your point about neighbors is relevant to it. Is it a serious risk where you live?
by pilsetnieks 10y ago
It's not exactly who but if, per the third amendment.
Also, I don't see how your point about neighbors is relevant to it. Is it a serious risk where you live? A common occurence, would you say? And how exactly, in constitutional sense, would you be able to do anything about it?
- amalcon 10y agoIf implies who, as it gives negotiating leverage. But that's kind of beside the point. Edit: I just realized I probably misunderstood you. The point about neighbors is meant to be relevant to the notion of the government having a degree of control over your property in general, not the specific question of who's allowed to stay there. Most of my response is no longer relevant with that clarification, so I've removed it.