6 ms·

"It's a private institution - They can quarter soldiers wherever they want."

freejazz 4y ago
I wish people would just make their points instead of making statements like this as if I'm a mindreader. I don't know what you know. I don't know what you don't understand. Reading this post, I would assume you don't understand a lot about the constitution, so I ask that you make your point clearly.
- db48x 4y ago
  The third amendment states that no soldier may be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, but since that only applies to the government it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. This was a pretty common tactic of oppression back before the war; it’s harder to plot a rebellion if a squad of Redcoats is camped out in your living room. I understand that China is fond of it as well.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    McDonald's doesn't have soldiers, but if they did and you allowed them to stay, what exactly would be the problem? > it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. really? trespass and private property are not a thing, or just not in your hypothetical because it would obviously be stupid then? like, are you seriously argue that because the constitution doesn't prohibit people from coming into your homes, people can come into your homes? did you think that through?
    - db48x 4y ago
      I was only explaining the comment, not stating that it was a 100% sound legal analysis. The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments.
      - freejazz 4y ago
        That's making a huge assumption on someone else's part, which is a funny thing to do given the comment you responded to. Oh well. > The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments. It's not funny at all, it's shockingly ignorant, actually, if anyone thinks what you posted.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        I think it's better to let the person who made the comment explain it, since you may or may not understand what they meant by it. No offense, but I felt your interpretation of it confused rather than clarified the issue.
    - stale2002 4y ago
      > trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument! The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because it's not the government doing it, it's a private corporation" are stupid. Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument? It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it. And they are using a funny example of "well what if a corporation forced you to have soldiers in your house". That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand.
      - chowchowchow 4y ago
        You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions. This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government, and thus, the only relevant subject of the limitations outlined in those amendments is also the US government.
        stale2002 4y ago
        > The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers You have misunderstood my post. I said this: "this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it" This is not contradicted by you saying that it is illegal for corporations to do it. Yes, it is illegal for a private company to do this. But my point is that "Its bad!". Which has nothing to do with if it is illegal or not. > even if there were no 3rd amendment. But my point, is that regardless if the 3rd amendment exists, it is bad for either the government, or a private company to do this. > Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions. I didn't say that the 3rd amendment has to mention other organizations. Instead, I am saying that no matter what the 3rd amendment applies to, or does not apply to, it is still bad if a private company, which is not the government, to put soldiers in your home, without your permission. Now, to get to the argument here, the reason why this is being pointed out, that it is bad if a private company does this, is that the same logic could be applied to other things in the constitution. That it is still bad if a private company does it, and also people saying "Well its OK because a private company is doing it" are making a dumb argument. > This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government Wrong. Due process is still important, even for private companies. Because due process is a valuable principle that could apply to non criminal punishment. Yes, people care about non-criminal punishment being fair as well. Just like how private companies putting soldiers in your home, without your permission, would be bad, even if it were legal, and its not the government doing it.
    - loeg 4y ago
      > you allowed them to stay The 3rd amendment is about quartering soldiers without your allowance. It's become a kind of joke because it's basically never been relevant since it was written.

I wish people would just make their points instead of making statements like this as if I'm a mindreader. I don't know what you know. I don't know what you don't understand. Reading this post, I would assume you don't understand a lot about the constitution, so I ask that you make your point clearly.

db48x 4y ago
The third amendment states that no soldier may be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, but since that only applies to the government it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. This was a pretty common tactic of oppression back before the war; it’s harder to plot a rebellion if a squad of Redcoats is camped out in your living room. I understand that China is fond of it as well.
- freejazz 4y ago
  McDonald's doesn't have soldiers, but if they did and you allowed them to stay, what exactly would be the problem? > it is ok for McDonalds, the RIAA, Microsoft, or Elsevier to quarter their soldiers in your house even without asking for permission. really? trespass and private property are not a thing, or just not in your hypothetical because it would obviously be stupid then? like, are you seriously argue that because the constitution doesn't prohibit people from coming into your homes, people can come into your homes? did you think that through?
  - db48x 4y ago
    I was only explaining the comment, not stating that it was a 100% sound legal analysis. The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments.
    - freejazz 4y ago
      That's making a huge assumption on someone else's part, which is a funny thing to do given the comment you responded to. Oh well. > The “that amendment only restricts what the government can do” excuse comes up a lot when companies censor speech that they don’t like, and it is pretty funny to see it applied to some of the lesser–known amendments. It's not funny at all, it's shockingly ignorant, actually, if anyone thinks what you posted.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      I think it's better to let the person who made the comment explain it, since you may or may not understand what they meant by it. No offense, but I felt your interpretation of it confused rather than clarified the issue.
  - stale2002 4y ago
    > trespass and private property are not a thing So do you admit that if a private company forces you to have troops in your house, without your permission, this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it? If you answer "yes, this is still bad, even though it's not the government" then congratulations you now understand the argument! The argument is that people saying "well, it's OK because it's not the government doing it, it's a private corporation" are stupid. Now, question for you. Did you read the original comment and really not come to this obvious conclusion/explanation of the argument? It's seems like super obvious that the person was making fun of people who claim that something is OK because a private corporation is doing it. And they are using a funny example of "well what if a corporation forced you to have soldiers in your house". That funny example, makes the point pretty easy to understand.
    - chowchowchow 4y ago
      You have no interest it seems in considering it, but your analogy is flawed. The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers in your house under the law is the US government, as it would be illegal for McDonalds to send its soldiers into your or my house even if there were no 3rd amendment. Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions. This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government, and thus, the only relevant subject of the limitations outlined in those amendments is also the US government.
      - stale2002 4y ago
        > The only institution which _could_ conceivably quarter its soldiers You have misunderstood my post. I said this: "this is still bad even though it is not literally the government doing it" This is not contradicted by you saying that it is illegal for corporations to do it. Yes, it is illegal for a private company to do this. But my point is that "Its bad!". Which has nothing to do with if it is illegal or not. > even if there were no 3rd amendment. But my point, is that regardless if the 3rd amendment exists, it is bad for either the government, or a private company to do this. > Hence, the 3rd amendment restricting the government's right to quarter soldiers and not mentioning any other institutions. I didn't say that the 3rd amendment has to mention other organizations. Instead, I am saying that no matter what the 3rd amendment applies to, or does not apply to, it is still bad if a private company, which is not the government, to put soldiers in your home, without your permission. Now, to get to the argument here, the reason why this is being pointed out, that it is bad if a private company does this, is that the same logic could be applied to other things in the constitution. That it is still bad if a private company does it, and also people saying "Well its OK because a private company is doing it" are making a dumb argument. > This applies to due process as well, as the only organization or institution capable of levying criminal punishment is the US government Wrong. Due process is still important, even for private companies. Because due process is a valuable principle that could apply to non criminal punishment. Yes, people care about non-criminal punishment being fair as well. Just like how private companies putting soldiers in your home, without your permission, would be bad, even if it were legal, and its not the government doing it.
  - loeg 4y ago
    > you allowed them to stay The 3rd amendment is about quartering soldiers without your allowance. It's become a kind of joke because it's basically never been relevant since it was written.