704
submitted 3 weeks ago by The_Picard_Maneuver to c/[email protected]
all 37 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] OwlPaste 110 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] The_Picard_Maneuver 164 points 3 weeks 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] 41 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] CptEnder 6 points 3 weeks 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] 6 points 3 weeks 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 69 points 3 weeks 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.)

[-] [email protected] 19 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago

For anyone else who isn't a yank:

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

[-] RGB3x3 9 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] mojofrododojo 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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

[-] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago

That "probable cause" loophole is lame as hell.

[-] mojofrododojo 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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

[-] TexasDrunk 14 points 3 weeks ago

That motherfucker doesn't really exist anymore.

[-] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago

Look how they massacred my boy.

[-] [email protected] 6 points 3 weeks ago

Also hardly ever talked about anymore 😔

[-] essell 8 points 3 weeks 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] 17 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] EncryptKeeper 5 points 3 weeks 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] 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[-] [email protected] 30 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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 10 points 3 weeks 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] 5 points 3 weeks 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 3 points 3 weeks 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 2 points 3 weeks 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 84 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] [email protected] 22 points 3 weeks ago

"Funniest way I've ever gotten the meat stick treatment."

[-] mojofrododojo 11 points 3 weeks ago

yup. I would be like, "fuck, you're completely right. I knew I should have joined the CIA instead."

[-] [email protected] 71 points 3 weeks 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] 22 points 3 weeks 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!

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

Sounds like you're ready to join the supreme court!

[-] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago

God bless the third amendment

[-] dogsnest 18 points 3 weeks ago

....lest her husband practice the 4th.

[-] [email protected] 14 points 3 weeks ago

No unreasonable search and seizures?

[-] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago

Anyone care to explain for the 97% of people who don't know what that is?

[-] [email protected] 12 points 3 weeks ago

The 3rd amendment is that soldiers can't live in people's homes unless the owner consents to it. I think it goes back to the war where they would just go into any home and live there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
704 points (98.5% liked)

White People Twitter

4340 readers
2731 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying.
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS