4 ms·

> For more proof that the Constitution is a historical document, please see the Third Amendment, which is about quartering soldiers. I don't see how this is at

> For more proof that the Constitution is a historical document, please see the Third Amendment, which is about quartering soldiers. I don't see how this is at all irrelevant. The United States cannot sanction civilian property for military use such as quartering soldiers. Why would anyone think such a prohibition is out of date?

philips 2y ago
I think a more gracious reading would be that the document should be updated regularly to state simply in modern terms the meaning. A problem, rightfully, of extending “no quartering of soldiers” to mean “no sanctioning of private property for any military use” is that it leaves interpretation to the courts. And we continue to have issue with courts choosing to interpret plain meaning or original intent or twisting the two to their own agenda.
- travoc 2y ago
  The document has very clear instructions for updating it, so go nuts. Probably better that it’s rarely done.
- anon291 2y ago
  Courts interpreting it is good because it's a much quicker, more responsive, less permanent update mechanism. The issue with swift changes is Prohibition.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
skybrian 2y ago
According to Wikipedia, it’s the amendment that is one of the least controversial and is rarely litigated.
- mindslight 2y ago
  Yet its narrow applicability still hasn't stopped the courts from authorizing blatant violations of it. The verdict of Mitchell v. City of Henderson is appalling.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Which verdict? The case against the police for doing something they had no right to do, or the seperate case that what they did was a violation of the US third amendment? https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/judge-police-takeover-of-henderson-homes-not-covered-by-third-amendment/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/judge-po... Police taking over your home to setup base for observing and taking out a neighbour with no warrent or permission is something that should be illegal and not require casting local police officers as Federal soldiers to whom the quartering restriction applies.
    - mindslight 2y ago
      Sorry. Speaking precisely, the rejection of the third amendment claim was appalling. Heavily armed government agents whose main function is to perform escalating violence are clearly a type of soldier. > Police taking over your home to setup base for observing and taking out a neighbour with no warrent or permission is something that should be illegal and not require casting local police officers as Federal soldiers to whom the quartering restriction applies. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm certainly not some constitutional fundamentalist who thinks that it is a holy text. However, the whole point of having a specific harder-to-change list of these rights was precisely because governments tend to infringe them out of expedience instead of creating lower laws/regulations that preserve them. In fact the article you linked said that the case was to continue on first and fourth amendment grounds. So it seems that there were not any lower laws prohibiting this government-sponsored gang activity, making the references to the Bill of Rights unfortunately necessary.
      - defrost 2y ago
        > Heavily armed government agents whose main function is to perform escalating violence are clearly a type of soldier. Sure .. but the document in question is the Constitution of the United States .. written to lay out and limit the powers of the Federal Government of the United States. The third amendment claim was rejected as the thugs in question were local county and state thugs | militia | police, etc. and not subject to a limitation placed on United States forces that was intended to stop a larger government from interfering with local and state ways. > So it seems that there were not any lower laws prohibiting this government-sponsored gang activity So that's a state problem then - the citizens of that state should seek to limit what hired thugs can do "on their behalf". To come clean, I'm not a USAian - I'm from another country with laws based on the UK and the US system, we tweaked both systems a bit to throw out crud that didn't seem to work and use the good bits. Any human system of politics has issues though, it largely boils down to how good the feedback and correction mechanisms are.
pfdietz 2y ago
The third amendment may become relevant again in space. No one could be required to house soldiers in their space habitat.
- courseofaction 2y ago
  I suspect that what rules apply to space habitats will depend on who's got the power to make and enforce those rules at the time it becomes relevant. Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings).
  - creato 2y ago
    > Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings). This is not accurate. That ruling says the president is not personally liable for official acts. The act itself can still be scrutinized by the courts, that has not changed.
    - courseofaction 2y ago
      I'm not sure I understand the meaningful distinction. In what sense can it be scrutinised? To what end can the court scritinise the act? Overturning the act itself? Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable? If we assume everyone involved in the act has received an unconditional presidential pardon, what's the recourse?
      - anamax 2y ago
        > Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable? We do it all the time. Suppose that an agency writes a regulation. Someone sues and a court finds that said regulation is not supported by any regulation, that the regulation is illegal. We don't throw he person who wrote the regulation in jail.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
euroderf 2y ago
Quartering is more than dinner and a bed. It is also surveillance and enforcement. I would read this amendment as permitting no persistent government presence in any home, such as and including electronic surveillance.
monkeyfun 2y ago
It's funny that they can't forcibly sanction property in the form of homes... but they can functionally enslave people and potentially send them to their death (conscription) or take property in the form of money and assets (taxes).

philips 2y ago

I think a more gracious reading would be that the document should be updated regularly to state simply in modern terms the meaning. A problem, rightfully, of extending “no quartering of soldiers” to mean “no sanctioning of private property for any military use” is that it leaves interpretation to the courts. And we continue to have issue with courts choosing to interpret plain meaning or original intent or twisting the two to their own agenda.

travoc 2y ago
The document has very clear instructions for updating it, so go nuts. Probably better that it’s rarely done.
anon291 2y ago
Courts interpreting it is good because it's a much quicker, more responsive, less permanent update mechanism. The issue with swift changes is Prohibition.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

skybrian 2y ago

According to Wikipedia, it’s the amendment that is one of the least controversial and is rarely litigated.

mindslight 2y ago
Yet its narrow applicability still hasn't stopped the courts from authorizing blatant violations of it. The verdict of Mitchell v. City of Henderson is appalling.
- defrost 2y ago
  Which verdict? The case against the police for doing something they had no right to do, or the seperate case that what they did was a violation of the US third amendment? https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/judge-police-takeover-of-henderson-homes-not-covered-by-third-amendment/ https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/judge-po... Police taking over your home to setup base for observing and taking out a neighbour with no warrent or permission is something that should be illegal and not require casting local police officers as Federal soldiers to whom the quartering restriction applies.
  - mindslight 2y ago
    Sorry. Speaking precisely, the rejection of the third amendment claim was appalling. Heavily armed government agents whose main function is to perform escalating violence are clearly a type of soldier. > Police taking over your home to setup base for observing and taking out a neighbour with no warrent or permission is something that should be illegal and not require casting local police officers as Federal soldiers to whom the quartering restriction applies. I wholeheartedly agree. I'm certainly not some constitutional fundamentalist who thinks that it is a holy text. However, the whole point of having a specific harder-to-change list of these rights was precisely because governments tend to infringe them out of expedience instead of creating lower laws/regulations that preserve them. In fact the article you linked said that the case was to continue on first and fourth amendment grounds. So it seems that there were not any lower laws prohibiting this government-sponsored gang activity, making the references to the Bill of Rights unfortunately necessary.
    - defrost 2y ago
      > Heavily armed government agents whose main function is to perform escalating violence are clearly a type of soldier. Sure .. but the document in question is the Constitution of the United States .. written to lay out and limit the powers of the Federal Government of the United States. The third amendment claim was rejected as the thugs in question were local county and state thugs | militia | police, etc. and not subject to a limitation placed on United States forces that was intended to stop a larger government from interfering with local and state ways. > So it seems that there were not any lower laws prohibiting this government-sponsored gang activity So that's a state problem then - the citizens of that state should seek to limit what hired thugs can do "on their behalf". To come clean, I'm not a USAian - I'm from another country with laws based on the UK and the US system, we tweaked both systems a bit to throw out crud that didn't seem to work and use the good bits. Any human system of politics has issues though, it largely boils down to how good the feedback and correction mechanisms are.

pfdietz 2y ago

The third amendment may become relevant again in space. No one could be required to house soldiers in their space habitat.

courseofaction 2y ago
I suspect that what rules apply to space habitats will depend on who's got the power to make and enforce those rules at the time it becomes relevant. Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings).
- creato 2y ago
  > Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings). This is not accurate. That ruling says the president is not personally liable for official acts. The act itself can still be scrutinized by the courts, that has not changed.
  - courseofaction 2y ago
    I'm not sure I understand the meaningful distinction. In what sense can it be scrutinised? To what end can the court scritinise the act? Overturning the act itself? Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable? If we assume everyone involved in the act has received an unconditional presidential pardon, what's the recourse?
    - anamax 2y ago
      > Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable? We do it all the time. Suppose that an agency writes a regulation. Someone sues and a court finds that said regulation is not supported by any regulation, that the regulation is illegal. We don't throw he person who wrote the regulation in jail.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

euroderf 2y ago

Quartering is more than dinner and a bed. It is also surveillance and enforcement. I would read this amendment as permitting no persistent government presence in any home, such as and including electronic surveillance.

monkeyfun 2y ago

It's funny that they can't forcibly sanction property in the form of homes... but they can functionally enslave people and potentially send them to their death (conscription) or take property in the form of money and assets (taxes).