4 ms·

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.
      - mcint 2y ago
        It's a good thing they don't have to bother upholding those other pesky enumerated rights too. The salient detail would be a strong distinction of soldiers from police forces. It's only because of the strongly kept distinction that it's notable when federal military personnel are deployed in response to riots, natural disasters, or other national emergencies. See also the related, but opposite in participant and realm of action, Posse Comitatus Act, > signed on June 18, 1878 ... limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. > updated it in 1956, 1981 and 2021. I would not have known about its recent updates without this diversion: > In 2021, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 further expanded the scope of the Act to cover the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force But not the Army nor Air National Guards of states, nor the Coast Guard, since law enforcement is part of its mission. https://en-wp.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en-wp.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act The distinction has its own wikipedia page discussing the long history of its relevance, at least 146 years. https://en-wp.org/wiki/Separation_of_military_and_police_roles https://en-wp.org/wiki/Separation_of_military_and_police_rol...

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.
    - mcint 2y ago
      It's a good thing they don't have to bother upholding those other pesky enumerated rights too. The salient detail would be a strong distinction of soldiers from police forces. It's only because of the strongly kept distinction that it's notable when federal military personnel are deployed in response to riots, natural disasters, or other national emergencies. See also the related, but opposite in participant and realm of action, Posse Comitatus Act, > signed on June 18, 1878 ... limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States. > updated it in 1956, 1981 and 2021. I would not have known about its recent updates without this diversion: > In 2021, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 further expanded the scope of the Act to cover the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force But not the Army nor Air National Guards of states, nor the Coast Guard, since law enforcement is part of its mission. https://en-wp.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act https://en-wp.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act The distinction has its own wikipedia page discussing the long history of its relevance, at least 146 years. https://en-wp.org/wiki/Separation_of_military_and_police_roles https://en-wp.org/wiki/Separation_of_military_and_police_rol...