The 3rd amendment prohibits the government from forcing you to quarter soldiers on your personal property. It was written in response to a common practice of the British army during the Revolutionary War.
Pretty common for Allied soldiers to house in WWII. But people in occupied France, etc generally were pretty cool to have liberators crash in their pad for a little while.
The third amendment protects against forced quartering of soldiers in reaction to the British Quartering Acts, which required colonies to feed and house British soldiers. Of course the soldier in this case is (hopefully) not forcing himself into this house, but I think the humor more comes from the fact that we hardly think or talk about that amendment anymore (as opposed to the first, second, fifth, etc.)
happen to have a lot of cash on you? yeeeeah we’re just gonna take that. you can sue the government (haha) and maybe you’ll get it back in a few years. we’re gonna use it to juice our slush,er, benevolent order of police funding, and uh, I dunno, buy an APC and a helicopter.
and a ton of weapons.
oh yeah, the federal gov gives us APCs and helos surplus, shit, well, let’s paaaaaaarty
No that’s amendments is as relevant today as it was then. Unless you think that for some reason is would be more desirable for the government to force you to house soldiers for some reason.
Housing soldiers in citizens homes in modern times would be inefficient and dangerous. It would drastically affect readiness and deployability amd lead to general unrest.
It is in every way a very outdated amendment, as that’s not how professional armies are fielded in modern times, nor is there any press to go back to what was a barbaric act when the law was past.
We likely dont need it, but it’s basically moot, and the construction is impossible to amend.
The third amendment was Boston’s traumatic response to the British occupational forces that landed there forcing the locals to house and feed them.
It’d be like if the Carolinas came to the convention with an amendment drafted specifically about not being allowed to use terror tactics against enemy combatants because of Tarleton or if New York put in especially harsh punishments for treason because of Benedict Arnold.
Something that was forgotten since though is that this was a time before the development of professionalized civilian policing. Those soldiers were there as a policing force, and the third amendment was basically written with the intent that a police force cannot force the city they are policing to provide for them since policing is by definition not a service to the people who encounter it, but rather a service done to the people around the person encountering it.
Supposedly in retaliation to British soldiers making themselves comfy in colonial homes when they pass by (but like, our soldiers did it too, the locals weren’t happy when ANYONE armed was coming through)
Our 3rd amendment to our constitution states: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
God, what shitty verbiage. It’s so hard to decipher their intent in that last line. Like, there’s no way they read that and said, “Yep, clear as day. No way to misinterpret that. There exists no other combination of words that could convey our intent more clearly.”
Can someone explain for people on the other side of the pond please?
The 3rd amendment prohibits the government from forcing you to quarter soldiers on your personal property. It was written in response to a common practice of the British army during the Revolutionary War.
Quartering was a common practice generally, troops were housed with the locals to guard (police) the locals.
Pretty common for Allied soldiers to house in WWII. But people in occupied France, etc generally were pretty cool to have liberators crash in their pad for a little while.
Well yeah, I’d rather have someone trying to rid the fascist fucks from my country stay with me than have a fascist fuck as a forced houseguest.
The third amendment protects against forced quartering of soldiers in reaction to the British Quartering Acts, which required colonies to feed and house British soldiers. Of course the soldier in this case is (hopefully) not forcing himself into this house, but I think the humor more comes from the fact that we hardly think or talk about that amendment anymore (as opposed to the first, second, fifth, etc.)
Hey how about some love for my good friend, The 4th Amendment?
That motherfucker doesn’t really exist anymore.
For anyone else who isn’t a yank:
The 4th amendment is (meant to) protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
May as well not exist, tbh. That amendment gets infringed on so many times by police, it’s not even funny.
happen to have a lot of cash on you? yeeeeah we’re just gonna take that. you can sue the government (haha) and maybe you’ll get it back in a few years. we’re gonna use it to juice our slush,er, benevolent order of police funding, and uh, I dunno, buy an APC and a helicopter.
and a ton of weapons.
oh yeah, the federal gov gives us APCs and helos surplus, shit, well, let’s paaaaaaarty
That “probable cause” loophole is lame as hell.
Probable cause, got flaws like dirty drawers
Meet me at the corner store so we can start the street wars
Look how they massacred my boy.
Also hardly ever talked about anymore 😔
Are you suggesting the relevance or application of the constitution has changed over time?
I fear you can get lynched for that kind of talk
Well no, I for one am thankful that the government cant just house people in my home. Its just not tested very often, its a good amendment.
No that’s amendments is as relevant today as it was then. Unless you think that for some reason is would be more desirable for the government to force you to house soldiers for some reason.
Housing soldiers in citizens homes in modern times would be inefficient and dangerous. It would drastically affect readiness and deployability amd lead to general unrest.
It is in every way a very outdated amendment, as that’s not how professional armies are fielded in modern times, nor is there any press to go back to what was a barbaric act when the law was past.
We likely dont need it, but it’s basically moot, and the construction is impossible to amend.
deleted by creator
The third amendment was Boston’s traumatic response to the British occupational forces that landed there forcing the locals to house and feed them.
It’d be like if the Carolinas came to the convention with an amendment drafted specifically about not being allowed to use terror tactics against enemy combatants because of Tarleton or if New York put in especially harsh punishments for treason because of Benedict Arnold.
Something that was forgotten since though is that this was a time before the development of professionalized civilian policing. Those soldiers were there as a policing force, and the third amendment was basically written with the intent that a police force cannot force the city they are policing to provide for them since policing is by definition not a service to the people who encounter it, but rather a service done to the people around the person encountering it.
Tl;Dr, Hamilton says Fuck the Police
Supposedly in retaliation to British soldiers making themselves comfy in colonial homes when they pass by (but like, our soldiers did it too, the locals weren’t happy when ANYONE armed was coming through)
Our 3rd amendment to our constitution states: No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
So as long as she consented it’d be fine.
God, what shitty verbiage. It’s so hard to decipher their intent in that last line. Like, there’s no way they read that and said, “Yep, clear as day. No way to misinterpret that. There exists no other combination of words that could convey our intent more clearly.”
Idk I don’t think it’s that bad for 18th century farmers
“No soldiers can squat in your house unless they have a letter from uncle sam saying they can”