• @OwlPaste
    link
    English
    1106 months ago

    Can someone explain for people on the other side of the pond please?

    • The Picard ManeuverOP
      link
      1646 months ago

      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.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        416 months ago

        Quartering was a common practice generally, troops were housed with the locals to guard (police) the locals.

        • @CptEnder
          link
          66 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            66 months ago

            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.

    • TheHarpyEagle
      link
      696 months ago

      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.)

      • modifier
        link
        fedilink
        196 months ago

        Hey how about some love for my good friend, The 4th Amendment?

        • @TexasDrunk
          link
          146 months ago

          That motherfucker doesn’t really exist anymore.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          146 months ago

          For anyone else who isn’t a yank:

          The 4th amendment is (meant to) protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.

          • @RGB3x3
            link
            English
            96 months ago

            May as well not exist, tbh. That amendment gets infringed on so many times by police, it’s not even funny.

            • @mojofrododojo
              link
              English
              6
              edit-2
              6 months ago

              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

              • @mojofrododojo
                link
                English
                1
                edit-2
                6 months ago

                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

      • @essell
        link
        86 months ago

        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

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          166 months ago

          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.

        • Encrypt-Keeper
          link
          English
          56 months ago

          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.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            6 months ago

            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.

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin
      link
      fedilink
      30
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      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

    • @OneOrTheOtherDontAskMe
      link
      106 months ago

      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.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      56 months ago

      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.

      • @KrankyKong
        link
        36 months ago

        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.”

        • @Restaldt
          link
          26 months ago

          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”

  • @Olhonestjim
    link
    846 months ago

    As a veteran, if a woman had done this to me, I wouldn’t even be mad. That’s hilarious, and I’d tell everybody.

    • @mojofrododojo
      link
      English
      116 months ago

      yup. I would be like, “fuck, you’re completely right. I knew I should have joined the CIA instead.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    716 months ago

    “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.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    226 months ago

    Ignoring all the facts, I conclude that the Constitution requires you to house me and sleep with me, since I am not in the military.
    USA! USA! USA!