So first thing to know is SCOTUS ruled the third amendment does not apply to police. Because the amendment literally says “soldier”. Seems simple enough right?
The problem is we didn’t have the concept of police back then that we have now. And the problem the amendment is addressing is the forced quartering of British Soldiers in homes during the American Revolution and the years leading up to it. To be clear, the consent of the homeowner was not required, some loyalists obviously welcomed it. But the majority did not and there were serious problems with it such as the soldiers considering everything in the house to be fair game, from the food to the daughters.
Now the crucial point is that policing back then was a sentry system. Citizens in good standing took turns on night watch and if they ran into a problem they would use a noisemaker like a whistle to call out anyone willing to help. This obviously is no good to the British and loyal colonial governments when the people are beginning to turn away from Britain.
So they got a few thousand British Soldiers in to do the job “properly” and they needed somewhere to house them.
So when the amendment was written, the word “police” wasn’t in large use yet. (it takes off as we know it in the early 1800’s) They didn’t think a citizen in good standing would need to take over a house, that kind of policing wasn’t even dreamed of, except as a measure of a military occupation. So they wrote in plain language as they knew it.
The intent was always to make sure the government couldn’t force you to house it’s agents. Now in modern times we have cases where police force people out of their homes to conduct surveillance on their neighbors.
In even more fun, the third and fourth amendments are where we get our right to privacy. If the government isn’t allowed to force itself into your home without a probable cause warrant then the right to privacy must be inferred. But with the recent Roe ruling and the state laws expanding the definition of a person based on religion (first amendment) we have some serious violations of privacy going on now as well.
Basically, we have the rights the police and conservative elite allow us to have, and not the rights enumerated to use by the Constitution. They may look the same, but they aren’t, and they change depending on how much money you have, the color of your skin, and who you know.
Obviously not since the biggest argument against enforcing the 3rd amendment against the police is the very semantics I talk about.
And we demonstrably do not have the rights the Constitution says we should have. So where do the rights we do have come from? Well the police and justice system have broad power to ignore the Constitution, so they and the political power behind them must be the actual arbiter of our rights. It’s not hard to put that equation together. Nobody is out here saying there’s a shadow cabal or a world government. Just a shitty reality.
The third? Quarter police? How is that being infringed on?
So first thing to know is SCOTUS ruled the third amendment does not apply to police. Because the amendment literally says “soldier”. Seems simple enough right?
The problem is we didn’t have the concept of police back then that we have now. And the problem the amendment is addressing is the forced quartering of British Soldiers in homes during the American Revolution and the years leading up to it. To be clear, the consent of the homeowner was not required, some loyalists obviously welcomed it. But the majority did not and there were serious problems with it such as the soldiers considering everything in the house to be fair game, from the food to the daughters.
Now the crucial point is that policing back then was a sentry system. Citizens in good standing took turns on night watch and if they ran into a problem they would use a noisemaker like a whistle to call out anyone willing to help. This obviously is no good to the British and loyal colonial governments when the people are beginning to turn away from Britain.
So they got a few thousand British Soldiers in to do the job “properly” and they needed somewhere to house them.
So when the amendment was written, the word “police” wasn’t in large use yet. (it takes off as we know it in the early 1800’s) They didn’t think a citizen in good standing would need to take over a house, that kind of policing wasn’t even dreamed of, except as a measure of a military occupation. So they wrote in plain language as they knew it.
The intent was always to make sure the government couldn’t force you to house it’s agents. Now in modern times we have cases where police force people out of their homes to conduct surveillance on their neighbors.
In even more fun, the third and fourth amendments are where we get our right to privacy. If the government isn’t allowed to force itself into your home without a probable cause warrant then the right to privacy must be inferred. But with the recent Roe ruling and the state laws expanding the definition of a person based on religion (first amendment) we have some serious violations of privacy going on now as well.
Basically, we have the rights the police and conservative elite allow us to have, and not the rights enumerated to use by the Constitution. They may look the same, but they aren’t, and they change depending on how much money you have, the color of your skin, and who you know.
You know that was all you need to write. Everything before that was unnecessary, sorry to say, rambling.
And after that was going pretty quickly to conspiracy theories.
Obviously not since the biggest argument against enforcing the 3rd amendment against the police is the very semantics I talk about.
And we demonstrably do not have the rights the Constitution says we should have. So where do the rights we do have come from? Well the police and justice system have broad power to ignore the Constitution, so they and the political power behind them must be the actual arbiter of our rights. It’s not hard to put that equation together. Nobody is out here saying there’s a shadow cabal or a world government. Just a shitty reality.
It’s an interesting thought but you’d be more convincing if you didn’t ramble incessantly and then go to conspiracy theories.
So what exactly do you think is the conspiracy here? What’s the crime, who’s the group, where do they meet, why are they conspiring?