5 ms·

Amendment 3 is pretty tough.

skrebbel 7y ago
Googled it so you don't have to: "The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime."
- BLKNSLVR 7y ago
  How well defined is 'peacetime'?
  - nickthemagicman 7y ago
    There's groups out there I'm sure that could make the justification that something like 'the war on drugs' or 'the war on belly fat' means we're not at peacetime.
    - bluejekyll 7y ago
      I think this is the first case the Supreme Court heard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey Because of the lack of any prior Third Amendment jurisprudence, this decision established three important holdings not previously articulated: (1) that the National Guardsmen qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment; (2) that the Third Amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, i.e., is incorporated against the states; and (3), that the protection of the Third Amendment extends beyond home owners, that is, those only with a fee simple arrangement, but includes anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises.[1] The majority held that the correctional officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was therefore protected under the Third Amendment. Basically, the state kicked striking prison guards out of their employee benefit housing for national guard troops to use while the national guard was used for overseeing the prison. Nixon started “the war on drugs”, and it looks like they didn’t try to use that as a defense.
      - nickthemagicman 7y ago
        That appears to address the 'occupation' part but not the 'at war' part. Is that settled? Just because they didn't use it in the past doesn't mean they won't try in the future. Things are going on right now in Washington that are completely unprecedented up to this point. What caselaw defines 'at war' as it pertains to the third?
nateburke 7y ago
It's necessary! E.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-uighur-monitor-home-shared-bed-report-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-uighur-monitor-home-sh...

Googled it so you don't have to: "The Third Amendment to the United States Constitution places restrictions on the quartering of soldiers in private homes without the owner's consent, forbidding the practice in peacetime."

BLKNSLVR 7y ago
How well defined is 'peacetime'?
- nickthemagicman 7y ago
  There's groups out there I'm sure that could make the justification that something like 'the war on drugs' or 'the war on belly fat' means we're not at peacetime.
  - bluejekyll 7y ago
    I think this is the first case the Supreme Court heard: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engblom_v._Carey Because of the lack of any prior Third Amendment jurisprudence, this decision established three important holdings not previously articulated: (1) that the National Guardsmen qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment; (2) that the Third Amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, i.e., is incorporated against the states; and (3), that the protection of the Third Amendment extends beyond home owners, that is, those only with a fee simple arrangement, but includes anyone who, within their residence, has a legal expectation of privacy and a legal right to exclude others from entry into the premises.[1] The majority held that the correctional officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was therefore protected under the Third Amendment. Basically, the state kicked striking prison guards out of their employee benefit housing for national guard troops to use while the national guard was used for overseeing the prison. Nixon started “the war on drugs”, and it looks like they didn’t try to use that as a defense.
    - nickthemagicman 7y ago
      That appears to address the 'occupation' part but not the 'at war' part. Is that settled? Just because they didn't use it in the past doesn't mean they won't try in the future. Things are going on right now in Washington that are completely unprecedented up to this point. What caselaw defines 'at war' as it pertains to the third?

nateburke 7y ago

It's necessary! E.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-uighur-monitor-home-shared-bed-report-2019-11 https://www.businessinsider.com/china-uighur-monitor-home-sh...