Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

The forgotten voting block: 3rd Amendment supporters

The forgotten voting block: 3rd Amendment supporters

There’s sudden attention being paid to the 3rd Amendment:

At Legal Insurrection we supported the 3rd Amendment before it was cool to support the 3rd Amendment.

And we vote.

I support the 3rd Amendment, and I vote (October 7, 2011)

Bumper Sticker - Ithaca - AAQA

Hey, anyone know how 3rd Amendment supporters voted? (November 13, 2012)

Bumper Sticker - Ithaca - Third Amendment

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I’m ashamed to admit that at the time I write this post, I can’t recall the 3d amendment off the top of my head, but thanks to your post, I will study it now.

Studying the article, I foresee a failure to adequately label police as soldiers and therefore the 3d Amendment would not apply to police (per Posse Comitatus), unless it were national guardsman or regular armed forces acting in a police capacity. I don’t believe the 3d amendment applies in this case.

    BrendaK in reply to Paul. | July 8, 2013 at 10:03 am

    When it gets to the Supreme Court, I’m hoping Ginsberg finds some loose penumbras to apply to the sit-u-ation.

    As well, with the police so militarized, I could see an argument to be made that they constitute a de facto quasi-military organization.

How odd, I was going to post a comment about the 3rd just last night..

Here is a little known court case about that very thing right now.

https://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

From the Ilya Somin post at The Volokh Conspiracy:
Obviously, the complaint includes only the plaintiffs’ version of the story. The police will likely have a different one.

I would like to hear the police version, too. But, to be honest, I’m not sure I would trust it to be the whole truth, any more than I trust the plaintiff’s version is the whole truth.

Which is sad. There was a time when I would have automatically assumed the police were truthful.

Police aren’t soldiers and standing in the building wasn’t being quartered in it. The government doesn’t owe police room and board and the size of the department isn’t limited by their ability to buy or steal it. There’s other guarantees of due process and takings of property that would be violated by a forcible arrest and temporary confiscation.

    BrendaK in reply to TheYell. | July 8, 2013 at 10:13 am

    I would make the argument that because the officers made use of the goods in the home (the furniture and facilities) and ate out the homeowners substance (helped themselves to the contents of the ‘fridge), their action constitutes quartering.

I think the police were wrong. They probably have legal right to access the property, but not to arrest the homeowners and evict them from their own home. What about the castle doctrine?

Carol Herman | July 7, 2013 at 3:34 pm

As someone living in California, and returning to college late in life; I remember a polical science course where i learned this State ALSO incorporates our US Constitution. And, our Bill of Rights. If anything the State is not only in compliance with our Federal system, it hangs its hat on it as it created the State System. (All with sworn oaths administered to “officers of the law.”)

I know the case, here, comes from Henderson, NV. But I don’t think you can quibble that our 3rd Amendment wouldn’t comply, because it’s talking about police officers throwing homeowners ROUGHLY out of their homes, without warrant. And, without just cause. Because they wanted an “outpost” where they could view a neighbor’s house. And, where they wanted to catch the neighbors breaking the law.

The homeowners were mistreated. Shot at with “pepper bullets (?) that left painful scars.

And, then, GRISWOLD V CONNECTICUT seems to be the last time our Supreme’s used the 3rd. (And, this is the case where it turns out the State can’t tell you when you can use contraception “in your marriage bed.”) Back in the 1950’s, and early 1960’s, virginity still counted. Women who weren’t virgins, but wore white gowns, were snickered at.

Griswold is a door opener on “privacy.”

And, I’m not even a lawyer.

You know, it seems out 3rd Amendment Rights still has legs.

And, basically, the homeowner(s) in this case are claiming the police cannot “quarter their men” in your home, without a court order. And, without any decent justification to do so. “Quartering Soldiers.” That’s something the Brits used to do that also mightily p*ssed off “colonists.” We can’t call them Americans until we broke free, I think.

But our Amendments made it possible for members of the 13 colonies to sign onto the Constitution. At least seven colonies had to sign on. (I believe we’re at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, back in 1789, for the adoption of both the US Constitution. And, her Amendments.)

Alas, we are at the mercy of judges lust like little miss debbi nelson. Perhaps, in her mind “houses” were small then. And, had no toilets. Or running water.

Good to see how REDDIT, and now here are honing in on this case, giving it visibility above the “radar” line.

jeffreyquick | July 8, 2013 at 10:24 am

“Police aren’t soldiers”. Then they don’t need military equipment, do they?

[…] The forgotten voting block: 3rd Amendment supporters […]

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend