703
No quarter must be given
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
703 points (98.3% liked)
People Twitter
5277 readers
434 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Can someone explain for people on the other side of the pond please?
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.)
Hey how about some love for my good friend, The 4th Amendment?
For anyone else who isn't a yank:
The 4th amendment is (meant to) protect against unreasonable searches and seizures.
May as well not exist, tbh. That amendment gets infringed on so many times by police, it's not even funny.
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
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
That motherfucker doesn't really exist anymore.
Look how they massacred my boy.
Also hardly ever talked about anymore 😔
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
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.
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.
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.