The Bill of Rights Series: Amendment 3

[Gameface]

I want to start a series of threads regarding the Bill of Rights. I want to go through each amendment one at a time, but I've decided to skip the first two because I think they are already part of the national debate on a regular basis and we've gone over them several times on this board. Perhaps once we've gone through the other eight amendments we can come back to them if this is still a thing at that point.

Without further ado, let me introduce Amendment number 3:

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.

I'd say this is one of the biggest head scratchers out there. Maybe the British had a real nasty habit of taking over people's homes whenever they felt like it, but it hasn't been an issue in the U.S. or any other developed nation as far as I know.

So, does anyone feel strongly, one way or another about this amendment? Does anyone have any special insight as to why it was included?

Obviously I support the idea that soldiers shouldn't take over people's houses willy nilly.

Hopefully we can knock this one out in a couple days and move onto the next one, which I think is one of the most important and most degraded of our rights as described in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Very cool thread idea!

 

[DutchJazzer]

wtf start with number 1 and 2.

your just an anti gun nut and anti free speech punidt!
start with number 1 and 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[DutchJazzer]

I want to start a series of threads regarding the Bill of Rights. I want to go through each amendment one at a time, but I've decided to skip the first two because I think they are already part of the national debate on a regular basis and we've gone over them several times on this board. Perhaps once we've gone through the other eight amendments we can come back to them if this is still a thing at that point.

Without further ado, let me introduce Amendment number 3:



I'd say this is one of the biggest head scratchers out there. Maybe the British had a real nasty habit of taking over people's homes whenever they felt like it, but it hasn't been an issue in the U.S. or any other developed nation as far as I know.

So, does anyone feel strongly, one way or another about this amendment? Does anyone have any special insight as to why it was included?

Obviously I support the idea that soldiers shouldn't take over people's houses willy nilly.

Hopefully we can knock this one out in a couple days and move onto the next one, which I think is one of the most important and most degraded of our rights as described in the Bill of Rights.

simple the British tyranny, used soldiers to just go into houses and tyrannize the people for examples the Scots and Irish. the soldier where like the police force, but no due process etc.
so maybe that's why this is in here. at the time tyrannies across Europe had this habit.

 

[Gameface]

simple the British tyranny, used soldiers to just go into houses and tyrannize the people for examples the Scots and Irish. the soldier where like the police force, but no due process etc.
so maybe that's why this is in here. at the time tyrannies across Europe had this habit.

Thanks, and I think that makes a good deal of sense.

I know that at this point it is illegal for our military to be used domestically as a police force, so maybe this amendment laid that foundation and prevented the U.S. from using its military against its own citizens. I think that is pretty dang important. In part because the military is not its own class of citizen, and service members are not particularly beholden to the the government, only to their duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. I think that's really lost on a lot of people who have not been in the military, but individuals are not indoctrinated into any sort of devotion to our political leaders or our government institutions. It's all about serving to protect and defend the Constitution.

 

[Gameface]

wtf start with number 1 and 2.

your just an anti gun nut and anti free speech punidt!
start with number 1 and 2 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't want to get bogged down in the 1st and 2nd right off the bat. A big part of the reason I started this was to ask questions about why we don't consider many of the BoR outside the 1st and 2nd. I mean, people often talk about the Constitution and the BoR as if it is holy scripture, but they almost never give half a rats *** about right to trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. They're talking about freedom of religion and right to keep and bear arms. I want to look at the rest of the BoR.

 

[DutchJazzer]

I don't want to get bogged down in the 1st and 2nd right off the bat. A big part of the reason I started this was to ask questions about why we don't consider many of the BoR outside the 1st and 2nd. I mean, people often talk about the Constitution and the BoR as if it is holy scripture, but they almost never give half a rats *** about right to trial by jury, cruel and unusual punishment, etc. They're talking about freedom of religion and right to keep and bear arms. I want to look at the rest of the BoR.

was just joking so dont u worry

 

[DutchJazzer]

Thanks, and I think that makes a good deal of sense.

I know that at this point it is illegal for our military to be used domestically as a police force, so maybe this amendment laid that foundation and prevented the U.S. from using its military against its own citizens. I think that is pretty dang important. In part because the military is not its own class of citizen, and service members are not particularly beholden to the the government, only to their duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. I think that's really lost on a lot of people who have not been in the military, but individuals are not indoctrinated into any sort of devotion to our political leaders or our government institutions. It's all about serving to protect and defend the Constitution.

anywho, the way the "police force" worked back in those days.
is local villages community would ellect/chose constables. to act basically as a policemen. the king and queen had no influence on that. the military force, that duty was left to the red coats.
and there was no law stopping these red coats acting against peasants.
the magna carta only protected barons dukes lords en other "nobility" from the red coats. so there was a lot of animosity between the commoners/peasants and the army.

also in Germany(if it counts as developped nation) used soldiers to round up jews (and others), the army was used to enter homes. something the us constitution should protect against

 

[Stoked]

I think Dutch is right. The revolution was on American soil and the British troops didn't have garrisons when they arrived and they had to go somewhere. They took what they needed.

So it's not a problem now and if it ever became a problem again then the Bill of Rights has gone out the window already and it won't matter.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Thanks, and I think that makes a good deal of sense.

I know that at this point it is illegal for our military to be used domestically as a police force, so maybe this amendment laid that foundation and prevented the U.S. from using its military against its own citizens. I think that is pretty dang important. In part because the military is not its own class of citizen, and service members are not particularly beholden to the the government, only to their duty to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution. I think that's really lost on a lot of people who have not been in the military, but individuals are not indoctrinated into any sort of devotion to our political leaders or our government institutions. It's all about serving to protect and defend the Constitution.

that should be a fundamental right imho.
in mexico the federal police is in the gray area between police and military and is used to police

 

[Gameface]

that should be a fundamental right imho.
in mexico the federal police is in the gray area between police and military and is used to police

Maybe the 3rd Amendment should have basically said that flat out instead of just talking about soldiers using people's homes as quarters?

 

[DutchJazzer]

actually the first 3 amendments(and many more but not mentioning the rest of amendments yet cus we will talk about them soon) protect against tyranny or should i use the politically correct term monarchy.

 

[Gameface]

actually the first 3 amendments(and many more but not mentioning the rest of amendments yet cus we will talk about them soon) protect against tyranny or should i use the politically correct term monarchy.

Nothing about the word tyranny is non-PC.

But it's a term that gets thrown around a lot and elicits a lot of groans and eye-rolls.

 

[DutchJazzer]

Nothing about the word tyranny is non-PC.

But it's a term that gets thrown around a lot and elicits a lot of groans and eye-rolls.

actually its wrong to refer to a monarch as a tyrrany in certain countries, they call it "Lèse-majesté". and its not "pc" to refer to a monarchy as a tyranny

 

[fishonjazz]

Wait, from some peoples posts on here and Facebook I figured that obama destroyed the constitution, shredded the bill of rights and had already become a tyrannical monarch of the usa.

This didn't happen?

 

[DutchJazzer]

Wait, from some peoples posts on here and Facebook I figured that obama destroyed the constitution, shredded the bill of rights and had already become a tyrannical monarch of the usa.

This didn't happen?

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Wait, from some peoples posts on here and Facebook I figured that obama destroyed the constitution, shredded the bill of rights and had already become a tyrannical monarch of the usa.

This didn't happen?

It did actually. He and the secret service took over my house the other day. I'm almost out of zucchini as we speak.... oh, he wants me to shut it down. No more posting on Jazzfanz, and no more google fiber.

#hideyokids
#hideyowife

 

[fishonjazz]

It did actually. He and the secret service took over my house the other day. I'm almost out of zucchini as we speak.... oh, he wants me to shut it down. No more posting on Jazzfanz, and no more google fiber.

#hideyokids
#hideyowife

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Love the way both sides distort things. It's awesome and leads to nothing.

 

[Gameface]

So I guess we've covered the Third Amendment?