Warning

 

Close
Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Cancel Confirm
AR15.COM
8/19/2017 8:57:19 PM EDT
I was reading the Constitution this evening in its entirety.

This amendment triggered thought to me.

All of the bill of rights are important. We can all agree on that, I hope.

However, the 3rd made me think.

We take it for granted. To my knowledge, no SCOTUS case has even ruled on it.

It's so common sense, so explicit, it cannot be challenged lawfully. And it hasn't been challenged.

It's that easy. It was a colonial grievance. So much so, it's #3.

Of course we don't expect soldiers to be quartered in our home.

It's common sense in a land of free people.

It's sad that all the other nine don't share this type of respect.

The 10th is a joke, despite being written in to remove all doubt about the role of the federal government.

We have to fight for the 2nd.

The 1st has been ruined. "Hate speech" is a law now.

4th has been ruined by the NSA

I could go on and on.

TL/DR I wish the country treated all our Constitutional rights as absolutes.
8/19/2017 9:05:30 PM EDT
[#1]
Wasn't there a family out in CA or something that had their home taken over by the police cause they responded to a situation next door. I thought that went to the court.
8/19/2017 9:09:29 PM EDT
[#2]
It's easier for a right not to do something (quarter troops, testify against yourself) to be absolute than it is for a right to do something to be absolute. Thus the prohibited persons not allowed to have guns, no yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.
8/19/2017 9:10:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote History
Quoted:
Wasn't there a family out in CA or something that had their home taken over by the police cause they responded to a situation next door. I thought that went to the court.
View Quote
Even if you're dead on, that's not quartering soldiers.
8/19/2017 9:12:33 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote History
Quoted:
It's easier for a right not to do something (quarter troops, testify against yourself) to be absolute than it is for a right to do something to be absolute. Thus the prohibited persons not allowed to have guns, no yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc.
View Quote
You can't limit my speech,  no matter how hateful.

You can't limit my arms.

Most important to me: The federal government has no more rights than explicitly stated.

All have been trampled on.
8/19/2017 9:13:02 PM EDT
[#5]
I would hate to see that one go before the courts, no quartering troops in your home in times of peace. What if a liberal POTUS decided to try it during the ' war on terror '?
8/19/2017 9:21:15 PM EDT
[#6]
We definitely ran into problems with the 3rd during Katrina.
8/19/2017 9:21:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote History
Quoted:


Even if you're dead on, that's not quartering soldiers.
View Quote
It's quartering agents of the government.  Why do they need to only be wearing camo for it to apply?  The first amendment applies beyond quill pens.
8/19/2017 9:25:20 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote History
Quoted:


You can't limit my speech,  no matter how hateful.

You can't limit my arms.

Most important to me: The federal government has no more rights than explicitly stated.

All have been trampled on.
View Quote
Certain kinds of speech are limited by law.

Certain kinds of arms are limited by law, and their possession by certain kinds of people.

I'm guessing it's easier for a court to see those things as reasonable than the right not to do something, is the only point I was making.

I agree with you  10A
8/19/2017 9:31:49 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote History
Quoted:
You can't limit my speech,  no matter how hateful.
You can't limit my arms.
View Quote
Illogical statements. The government CAN do -- and has repeatedly done -- both.
8/19/2017 9:32:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote History
Quoted:

It's quartering agents of the government.  Why do they need to only be wearing camo for it to apply?  The first amendment applies beyond quill pens.
View Quote
I'd like to know more about the case in question before giving my opinion.

That being said, it's sad I thought I found the one amendment that has stood tall... to find out maybe it has not.

I'm sure about the SCOTUS rulings. I'm not 100% confident about the cops.

But even then,  while wrong to do so:

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.
8/19/2017 9:33:11 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote History
Quoted:

Illogical statements. The government CAN do -- and has repeatedly done -- both.
View Quote
That's the point of the thread...
8/19/2017 9:33:18 PM EDT
[#12]
There was a case, in NY IIRC, a guard at a prison lost his housing when the state replaced him with lower paid state workers.  The state even claimed there was an emergency that demanded it but there was no law that allowed it.

The guy won.
8/19/2017 10:03:05 PM EDT
[#13]
The 9th has died of neglect. Roe V Wade could have been more easily argued from a 9A perspective, or at least it would have been interesting, but the courts have chosen to ignore it.