[Ulrich Kinbote]

Well, at least two of the Amendments:

The infamous Second Amendment: "Right for the people to keep and bear arms, as well as to maintain a militia"; and the lesser known but uniquely absurd Third Amendment: "Protection from quartering of troops": 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.

Can anyone explain why the Bill of Rights contains these two wartime-Amendments? The American Civil War ended in 1865. The Third is outrageous. Not only is it a waste of an Amendment, it amounts to an anachronism in the Constitution.

[smacintush]

I just don't think I have the strength to go there…

[Big Mac]

Gee. I suppose you're a foreigner who lacks basic knowledge of American history. So I'll help you out. First of all, every one of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights was deemed terrifically important, and a lot of thought and deliberation went into their formulation.

The Second Amendment represented the founders' recognition that the individual right to firearms was an essential component of individual liberty. It had little to do with war but rather with the premise that a free people should be prepared to defend themselves against any threat. The Third Amendment seems in modern times to be superfluous, but it was included because Americans formerly had to accept the quartering of British troops in their residences.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by smacintush

I just don't think I have the strength to go there…

You're probably just biased because a group of 16th century Redcoats tried to quarter in your house and you "took the Third".

[Dork.]

How is the third amendment a "waste?" Even if we assume you are correct and it's a total anachronism, it's not like the amendment is taking up a roster spot for a minor-league amenedment just waiting to be promoted into the "Bill Of Rights". We should leav it in there if for no other reason that if we ever elect a Commander in Chief who rigs the voting process, oversteps his authority as granted by Congress, and sends us into never-ending wars for no reason, at least we know she won't be able to sic the military police on us.

The Second Amendment becomes much more relevant when you realize that the Clinton administration actually classified supercomputers and strong encryption as a munition for much of its tenure. I interpret that as saying we have a right to bear PGP.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

The Second Amendment represented the founders' recognition that the individual right to firearms was an essential component of individual liberty. It had little to do with war but rather with the premise that a free people should be prepared to defend themselves against any threat. The Third Amendment seems in modern times to be superfluous, but it was included because Americans formerly had to accept the quartering of British troops in their residences.

Not only is the Second Amendment bellicose (it has everything to do with war), but, according to your reasoning, it invalidates the other 9: If necessary, take the law into your own hands. And the Third Amendment is--as you have just confirmed--an anachronism. In short, you have not persuaded this foreigner of the logic or legitimacy of the Second and Third Amendment of your country's Bill of Rights.

It's still a joke.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Dork.

How is the third amendment a "waste?" Even if we assume you are correct and it's a total anachronism, it's not like the amendment is taking up a roster spot for a minor-league amenedment just waiting to be promoted into the "Bill Of Rights". We should leav it in there if for no other reason that if we ever elect a Commander in Chief who rigs the voting process, oversteps his authority as granted by Congress, and sends us into never-ending wars for no reason, at least we know she won't be able to sic the military police on us.

The Second Amendment becomes much more relevant when you realize that the Clinton administration actually classified supercomputers and strong encryption as a munition for much of its tenure. I interpret that as saying we have a right to bear PGP.

So what -- the Third is left there for no other reason than there's no good reason to remove it? Wow, that's a vital amendment to any constitution.

And no, the Military Police home-raids you imagine are covered by the Fourth Amendment: " Protection from unreasonable search and seizure."

Even a foreigner knows that.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

Not only is the Second Amendment bellicose (it has everything to do with war), but, according to your reasoning, it invalidates the other 9: If necessary, take the law into your own hands. And the Third Amendment is--as you have just confirmed--an anachronism. In short, you have not persuaded this foreigner of the logic or legitimacy of the Second and Third Amendment of your country's Bill of Rights.

It's still a joke.

It does not invalidate the other nine. If anything, it's the guarantor of the other nine. Btw, your use of the term anachronistic is improper - anachronistic refers to something that exists outside of its chronological setting. The Third Amendment certainly was appropriate for its time. And since it's one of the only non-contentious amendments that still theoretically serves a purpose, there's no reason to remove it. It is your opinion that is comical.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It does not invalidate the other nine. If anything, it's the guarantor of the other nine. Btw, your use of the term anachronistic is improper - anachronistic refers to something that exists outside of its chronological setting. The Third Amendment certainly was appropriate for its time. And since it's one of the only non-contentious amendments that still theoretically serves a purpose, there's no reason to remove it. It is your opinion that is comical.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

It does not invalidate the other nine. If anything, it's the guarantor of the other nine. Btw, your use of the term anachronistic is improper - anachronistic refers to something that exists outside of its chronological setting. The Third Amendment certainly was appropriate for its time. And since it's one of the only non-contentious amendments that still theoretically serves a purpose, there's no reason to remove it. It is your opinion that is comical.

anachronism noun a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, esp. a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.

The Third is just that: an Amendment belonging to the Civil War that has survived into the 21 century.

Nothing bothers me more than incorrect correction, so you get the stick:

What interests me is that your haughty defense of the Third Amendment sustains itself without an underwriting argument. It's that bloated, unreflecting, and emotional.

But God help me! A thumbs up from "ebuddy". I didn't see that coming! And since nothing can top such a riposte, I won't try.

My challenge to you: Convince me that the Third Amendment is necessary; that it is not taken care of by the Fourth.

[Dork.]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

So what -- the Third is left there for no other reason than there's no good reason to remove it? Wow, that's a vital amendment to any constitution.

The trouble is that you can only remove an amendment by passimg another amendment that repeals it. And the amendment process is difficult by design, so that it can only happen with broad support of the people. Too few people care about repealing it to make it possible. As far as I can tell, it's doing absolutely no harm, and even provides a little bit of benefit against the remote chance that a President who as authoritarian as I've described ever gets elected.

The 4th amendment just covers searches. But without the third amendment, this totally hypothetical President could decide to station the military inside a person's home for their "protection". This isn't a search, but don't you think that if this person sees you downloading MP3's illegally, that he'd be duty-bound to report you?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

The Third is just that: an Amendment belonging to the Civil War that has survived into the 21 century.

Why do you keep bringing up the civil war? Are you talking about the revolutionary war?

FYI, I don't think anyone is falling for you half-assed trolling expedition here.

[davesimondotcom]

If the Bill of Rights is a joke, methinks someone doesn't understand the joke.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Dork.

The trouble is that you can only remove an amendment by passimg another amendment that repeals it. And the amendment process is difficult by design, so that it can only happen with broad support of the people. Too few people care about repealing it to make it possible. As far as I can tell, it's doing absolutely no harm, and even provides a little bit of benefit against the remote chance that a President who as authoritarian as I've described ever gets elected.

The 4th amendment just covers searches. But without the third amendment, this totally hypothetical President could decide to station the military inside a person's home for their "protection". This isn't a search, but don't you think that if this person sees you downloading MP3's illegally, that he'd be duty-bound to report you?

This is the kind of reply I was hoping for.

I'm not attacking the US Bill of Rights. The other 8 Amendments are exemplary. I just don't agree with the Second, and don't understand the Third.

Your explanation is the best so far; however, it seems extremely unlikely that the President would attempt to station soliders in the homes of US citizens or do anything of the sort. This fact makes the Third Amendment questionable, and not in principle (this is what I am trying to stress) but simply because it is old-fashioned. Inventing hypothetical war-mongering presidents is a kind of post hoc rationalisation for the Third: You are making up improbable scenarios to defend the fact it already exists, rather than pointing to its modern relevance and necessity. The risks to civil liberty and freedom are not simply those things that the Constitution has decreed upon. You could just as easily dream up a thousand other Amendments and argue for their inclusion on principle.

Anyways, I think your first explanation is the best. It would just be a huge legislative ordeal to change it. I'm satisfied with that explanation.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

Why do you keep bringing up the civil war? Are you talking about the revolutionary war?

Yes. My mistake. Although the relevancy of the Third survived up until the Civil War and not long after.

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton

FYI, I don't think anyone is falling for you half-assed trolling expedition here.

WTF? This isn't trolling. I'm asking a genuine question in the appropriate forum about a subject I am genuinely interested in and don't understand. You're a f**king Troll-Witch Hunter.

Wiki fortifies my suspicion that the Third has kinda passed its use-by date:

The Third Amendment is among the least cited sections of the U.S. Constitution, having been addressed only once by a Federal court. A product of its times, its relevance has greatly declined since the American Revolution. In particular, military operations occurring on US territory have been increasingly infrequent, especially after the Civil War in the 19th century.

[Macrobat]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

anachronism noun a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, esp. a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.

The Third is just that: an Amendment belonging to the Civil War that has survived into the 21 century.

Nothing bothers me more than incorrect correction, so you get the stick:

What interests me is that your haughty defense of the Third Amendment sustains itself without an underwriting argument. It's that bloated, unreflecting, and emotional.

But God help me! A thumbs up from "ebuddy". I didn't see that coming! And since nothing can top such a riposte, I won't try.

My challenge to you: Convince me that the Third Amendment is necessary; that it is not taken care of by the Fourth.

Well, perhaps history remedials are in order. The Third Amendment was written 89 years before the American Civil War, and has to do with the quartering of British troops manditorally in American homes, because the Brits brought no engineers over here with them to build facilities.

It still holds relevance today, in that it prohibits the government from commandeering private residences to house troops.

Perhaps if you bothered to research the history before positing your premise, you wouldn't sound so uninformed and (as previously mentioned) comical.

The Second Amendment, although containing "bellicose" language, is - in fact - THE founding principal of this country.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

I'm not attacking the US Bill of Rights. The other 8 Amendments are exemplary. I just don't agree with the Second, and don't understand the Third.

Your lack of agreement with the Second does not make it a joke. It is extremely important.

See, the point of the Amendment #2 is to strengthen the first principle this country has: It is the People who give the power to the government. Not vice versa.

If the people are/can be armed, they can rise up if the government becomes too authoritarian.

You might think that a scenario like that is unlikely, but it's better to be armed than sorry.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

But God help me! A thumbs up from "ebuddy". I didn't see that coming! And since nothing can top such a riposte, I won't try.

You're not qualified.

My challenge to you: Convince me that the Third Amendment is necessary; that it is not taken care of by the Fourth.

The provisions outlined in the Third and Fourth Amendment are absolutely necessary to uphold the general appreciation of liberty. There are subtle differences contained in each. The fourth protecting against general warrants and specific privacy as it relates to property and the third general domestic privacy and respect of property ownership. To you, it may seem like a joke, but in fact to me it serves as a reminder of the importance of liberty in general. Imagine being deemed a political dissident with soldiers assigned within your dwelling at your expense. It is a historical document that serves more than the provisions outlined within it. I don't expect you to understand.

... and now for an opinion on why the "Christians' synoptic gospels are a joke" by Alistair Crowley...

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Macrobat
Perhaps if you bothered to research the history before positing your premise, you wouldn't sound so uninformed and (as previously mentioned) comical.

That's not fair. I did read up a little on the Bill of Rights. The questions my reading left me with are the reason for this thread; to get the perspective of someone from the US about their own Bill of Rights. It is because I have an interest in other cultures than my own. In my experience Americans don't know sh*t about sh*t outside of America and don't care. So f*uck you. Start a thread on the Treaty of Waitangi and I'll see how much of a buff you are on Colonialism in New Zealand.

Originally Posted by davesimondotcom

Your lack of agreement with the Second does not make it a joke. It is extremely important.

See, the point of the Amendment #2 is to strengthen the first principle this country has: It is the People who give the power to the government. Not vice versa.

If the people are/can be armed, they can rise up if the government becomes too authoritarian.

You might think that a scenario like that is unlikely, but it's better to be armed than sorry.

If that's your argument, it's rubbish.

You put in mind a ridiculous picture of a citizen army waving their handguns as The Final Solution to government reform. As if.

[BRussell]

Both of those amendments are considered anachronistic today. Our Supreme Court hasn't dealt with the third, as far as I know, ever, and the only time it's dealt with the Second Amendment was to say it didn't apply.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

You put in mind a ridiculous picture of a citizen army waving their handguns as The Final Solution to government reform. As if.

Power corrupts, but tell me... let's take a look at your system of governance. Are you absolutely sure there's nothing we could view as "silly" in there or are you going to let your origins remain anonymous?

[davesimondotcom]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

If that's your argument, it's rubbish.

You put in mind a ridiculous picture of a citizen army waving their handguns as The Final Solution to government reform. As if.

It's not rubbish - one of the first agendas of authoritarian regimes throughout history is to disarm the citizens.

I'm not going to argue the 2nd Amendment with you, because that's been hashed over in numerous threads on this board. There was even one in recent memory, and I think in that thread, I explained my position quite clearly.

The simple fact is, without the 2nd Amendment, the rest of our Constitutional rights are worth less and headed towards being worthless. It's essentially the insurance policy for the entire thing.

[vmarks]

The Constitution is not about granting rights to the citizenry.

It outlines what Government is forbidden from doing, and in the course enumerates specific rights the people have that Congress cannot impede on, because those rights are paramount.

Freedom to speak, freedom to assemble, freedom to publish.
Right to defend self and country.
Property rights (don't have to surrender house to government troops)
Property rights (don't have to be searched without cause)
Can't be made to incriminate self.

That's a reductionist summary, but the truth is there aren't meant to be penumbras, but simple understandable language. We the people have rights and we grant government power- government in turn can't do things to us, our property, prevent us from speaking or defending what's ours.

[Macrobat]

Anachronisitic? Hardly. The amendments of the Consitution - including these two - drive the formation, wording, and enforcement of laws written on the national, state, and local level (yes, even these two).

They form the basis upon which all gun control and emminent domain laws are built.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

The provisions outlined in the Third and Fourth Amendment are absolutely necessary to uphold the general appreciation of liberty. There are subtle differences contained in each. The fourth protecting against general warrants and specific privacy as it relates to property and the third general domestic privacy and respect of property ownership. To you, it may seem like a joke, but in fact to me it serves as a reminder of the importance of liberty in general. Imagine being deemed a political dissident with soldiers assigned within your dwelling at your expense. It is a historical document that serves more than the provisions outlined within it. I don't expect you to understand.

Your post is murky, pseudo-intellectual gobbledegook. With my rubber-glove-quotation-marks, I hold up this dirty little example by its corners:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

"There are subtle differences contained in each. The fourth protecting against general warrants and specific privacy as it relates to property and the third general domestic privacy and respect of property ownership."

These are very fuzzy definitions. "Specific privacy" and "domestic privacy". I wonder if even you know what you are talking about.

And I never once disputed the Fourth; therefore, you cannot convince me of the importance of the Third by advocating it.

The Third Amendment very specifically addresses itself to the quartering of troops. And please, try to get this into your head -- I AGREE that a decree prohibiting the quartering of troops is condusive to the principle of liberty . My point is that your Constitution contains an unnecessary and outmoded Amendment.

Again, with my rubber glove quotation marks:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

To you, it may seem like a joke, but in fact to me it serves as a reminder of the importance of liberty in general. Imagine being deemed a political dissident with soldiers assigned within your dwelling at your expense.

That is precisely what I am saying. You may imagine it. It will never happen. An event whose probability may now be computed at zero -- however unconstitutional -- doesn't justify an amendment.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Power corrupts, but tell me... let's take a look at your system of governance. Are you absolutely sure there's nothing we could view as "silly" in there or are you going to let your origins remain anonymous?

NOW I understand you e-buddy!

You think I am attacking the US Bill of Rights, and your most important, sacred values. You think I am trying to make it look "silly".

Relax. I am not. I already said the other 8 (bar 2 and 3) are exemplary. By that I mean they should be held up as an example; an ideal.

All I am trying to understand is how the Third has survived. I might disagree with the Second, but at least debating the Second is meaningful. But troops getting stationed in your living room? That is an invincible impossibility! That's all I'm saying.

[Big Mac]

Simply because you do not appreciate its historical and theoretical value does not mean it's useless. It's simply taken for granted because the federal government has never transgressed it. If the federal government never violated a person's Fourth Amendment rights (for example), you'd be here arguing that that amendment was also worthless.

[Dakar]

Either way this thread is poorly titled.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Simply because you do not appreciate its historical and theoretical value does not mean it's useless. It's simply taken for granted because the federal government has never transgressed it. If the federal government never violated a person's Fourth Amendment rights (for example), you'd be here arguing that that amendment was also worthless.

Yes. But it has, and I'm not.

Originally Posted by Dakar

Either way this thread is poorly titled.

I agree 100%. And it's probably the cause of all the tension and defensiveness.

Anyway, I've learnt something. Thanks everyone

[Millennium]

The Second Amendment exists as a last-resort check on the power of the government, in an attempt to preserve the ability of the people to revolt if the government should ever become untenably corrupt. This was a lot more effective when the government respected the fact that it's not allowed to have a standing army (it is, however, allowed a standing navy). But they found a way around that: every two years they vote on whether or not to maintain the current army for another two years. Needless to say the vote is always unanimous or very nearly so, but it keeps the army in a "permanent temporary" status. It's a pretty neat trick, I'll admit.

The Third Amendment is, perhaps, a bit of an anachronism. It was created in direct response to something the English government had been doing around the time of the revolution: it could forcibly quarter troops in people's homes. Aside from being a major burden on the people doing the quartering, it also put the troops in an excellent position to spy on the people who housed them. I'm kind of surprised that people haven't taken this in tandem with the Fourth Amendment to show intent that a privacy amendment would be in keeping with the Framers' original intentions.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Millennium

The Third Amendment is, perhaps, a bit of an anachronism. It was created in direct response to something the English government had been doing around the time of the revolution: it could forcibly quarter troops in people's homes. Aside from being a major burden on the people doing the quartering, it also put the troops in an excellent position to spy on the people who housed them. I'm kind of surprised that people haven't taken this in tandem with the Fourth Amendment to show intent that a privacy amendment would be in keeping with the Framers' original intentions.

That's what I thought when I read the American Bill or Rights for the first time (today).

I mean, there are lots of dumb obsolete laws (in Alabama, for example, it is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church) but the Bill of Rights is not some set of local bylaws.

Weird.

[Big Mac]

You're admitting that you only read the Bill of Rights for the first time today, but you're lecturing us on its proper interpretation?

[Rumor]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

My challenge to you: Convince me that the Third Amendment is necessary; that it is not taken care of by the Fourth.

There is a difference between a soldier shacking up in your home and rifling through your belongings.

[Rumor]

"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."

In the colonial era, the practice of billeting British troops in private homes was a widespread. One of the complaints against King George III in the Declaration of Independence was "for quartering large bodies of armed troops among us." The Third Amendment to the Constitution was one of 12 amendments submitted to the states by the First Congress on September 25, 1789, and was one of the ten ratified on December 15, 1791 that are together commonly known as the Bill of Rights.

However, the Third Amendment has proven to be one of the least-litigated sections of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never directly reviewed the meaning of the amendment. Indeed, only one court has ever confronted the meaning of the amendment, in a case decided nearly 200 years after it was ratified: Engblom v. Carey, 677 F. 2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982), on remand 572 F. Supp. 44 (S.D.N.Y. 1982), aff'd. per curiam 724 F.2d 28 (2d Cir. 1983).

Engblom grew out of a "statewide strike of correction officers, when they were evicted from their facility-residences ... and members of the National Guard were housed in their residences without their consent." The district court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants in a suit brought by the officers claiming a deprivation of their rights under the Third Amendment. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, however, reversed on the ground that it could not "say that as a matter of law appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Third Amendment." 677 F.2d at 964. On remand, however, the District Court held that because the officers' Third Amendment rights had not been clearly established at the time of the strike, the defendants were protected from suit by a qualified immunity, and this decision was upheld by the Second Circuit.

The Third Amendment has been cited in passing in other cases, most notably opinions arguing that there is a constitutional right to privacy, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965). In other cases, courts have cited the Third Amendment as proof that the Constitution carefully distinguishes between times of war and peace. Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer., 343 U.S. 579, 644 (1952). Perhaps because of its obscurity, the amendment also has attracted its share of crackpot theories, such as that Army reservists ordered to march in a parade had a Third Amendment right to sit it out instead. Jones v. United States Secretary of Defense, 346 F. Supp. 97 (D. Minn. 1972).

Also, the Civil War was quite some time after the Bill of Rights was written.

[Chuckit]

The Bill of Rights contains an item that was once necessary and happens not to be so necessary at the present time just because nobody would think of violating it? That is absolutely…er…wait, why am I supposed to care about this?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

... and now for an opinion on why the "Christians' synoptic gospels are a joke" by Aleister Crowley...

Do you really want this, or are you just being funny?

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You're admitting that you only read the Bill of Rights for the first time today, but you're lecturing us on its proper interpretation?

They're coming! Quick Big Mack! Take the Third! Take the Third!



As I think I mentioned, I am not American. I knew a few of the Amendments, but only read them today in full as part of a memorization exercise in a book I'm reading.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

Quick Big Mack! Take the Third! Take the Third!

Does it occur to you that it still protects citizens by keeping a gov't from seizing their property to store military or public works equipment (in a sense, troops ARE considered gov't property)?

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Does it occur to you that it still protects citizens by keeping a gov't from seizing their property to store military or public works equipment (in a sense, troops ARE considered gov't property)?

Please to describe a) a good reason why the American military would ever want to comandeer those vital of all military resources, "peoples homes" (the homes of their own citizens, let's not forget) and b) describe a scenario in which this could conceivably take place.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

Please to describe a) a good reason why the American military would ever want to comandeer those vital of all military resources, "peoples homes" (the homes of their own citizens, let's not forget) and b) describe a scenario in which this could conceivably take place.

Ok, say the national guard would like to use a large section of your property to store equipment after a natural disaster. Let's say you own a sizeable orange grove in Florida, that for some reason wasn't damaged very badly during a tropical storm.

Now, your property, let's say, is about 50 miles closer to the damaged area than their base. At the same time, the local city storage site for such things is badly damaged, or even under water. They'd really like to use your land, they say it would save a great deal of time and effort. Maybe, they even lean on you a bit, but say you'll be compensated. However, you know that it will destroy your crop and trees and would take a decade or more to get your business running again.

This Amendment would keep that from happening.

[ghporter]

Actual text of the Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "militia" meant "the armed citizens of the area," and the phrase "well regulated" was used to refer to properly trained (regular, as in everyone doing the same thing). In this context, it says basically that individual citizens, properly trained in the use of their personally owned firearms, are "necessary to the security of a free State." In other words, what Millennium said-a last resort protection of the population, but both from the government and from any other threat.

This is not a joke, far from it. People have died for this and the other amendments of the Bill of Rights-emphatically and specifically because they believed in the Constitution and the ideal of individual liberty and individual responsibility.

As for the Third Amendment, quartering is something that was so heinous to the people of the Colonies that the Continental Congress felt it imperitive, even years after independence, to explicitly prohibit it. Not burning the flag, not banning same sex marriage, but forcibly placing foreign troops in people's homes. Pretty harsh? Not if someone forced you to quarter (not just lodge but FEED) a foreign soldier in YOUR house!

I'll also point out that the ORIGINAL Second Amendment, one that didn't make the cut when the Bill of Rights was being argued, was eventually ratified as the 27th Amendment:

The laws ascertaining the compensation of senators and representatives, for their services, shall be postponed in their operation until after the election of representatives immediately succeeding the passing thereof; that excepted which shall first be passed on the subject.

Proposed on 5 September 1789, it was ratified on 5 May 1992. Most proposed amendments have a sunset clause in their wording so they don't just linger on, but this one did not so, much to the chagrin of many in Congress, it was ratified over two hundred years after its proposal.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Ok, say the national guard would like to use a large section of your property to store equipment after a natural disaster. Let's say you own a sizeable orange grove in Florida, that for some reason wasn't damaged very badly during a tropical storm.

Now, your property, let's say, is about 50 miles closer to the damaged area than their base. At the same time, the local city storage site for such things is badly damaged, or even under water. They'd really like to use your land, they say it would save a great deal of time and effort. Maybe, they even lean on you a bit, but say you'll be compensated. However, you know that it will destroy your crop and trees and would take a decade or more to get your business running again.

This Amendment would keep that from happening.

Good point; however, the farmer in the scenario you describe might be protected by the Fourth ("prohibition against unlawful search and seizure") or the Third could, in any case, be a clause to the Fourth rather than a separate amendment. But your case is still made: my argument now is no longer against the Third per se, simply its being a separate Amendment.

[vmarks]

Ulrich, what I think you're missing is this:

Some of the founders of the nation were loathe to write a Bill of Rights at all.

Their position was, it is unnecessary to enumerate rights when the People have all rights and government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Enumerating rights then makes the ones defined and the ones undefined can be ignored was the fear.

The position that won out was that enumerating rights of the People as prohibitions on the government would prevent the government from doing specific things that were heinous and opposed to the hard-won Liberty.

So the goal then isn't trying to combine amendments and let some potential events fall under one word in an amendment, but instead be very pointed about preventing specific violations.

Rather than 'didn't you get that you couldn't be housed here, effectively seizing my property when we said 'NO SEIZURE'?' it's 'You shall not be housed and fed here against my will. FULL STOP.'

Which is why the reading into the language and divining new meanings is so offensive to folks who know it to have been written with a literalist intent.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Ulrich, what I think you're missing is this:

Some of the founders of the nation were loathe to write a Bill of Rights at all.

Their position was, it is unnecessary to enumerate rights when the People have all rights and government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Enumerating rights then makes the ones defined and the ones undefined can be ignored was the fear.

The position that won out was that enumerating rights of the People as prohibitions on the government would prevent the government from doing specific things that were heinous and opposed to the hard-won Liberty.

So the goal then isn't trying to combine amendments and let some potential events fall under one word in an amendment, but instead be very pointed about preventing specific violations.

Rather than 'didn't you get that you couldn't be housed here, effectively seizing my property when we said 'NO SEIZURE'?' it's 'You shall not be housed and fed here against my will. FULL STOP.'

Which is why the reading into the language and divining new meanings is so offensive to folks who know it to have been written with a literalist intent.

That's cool. Sorry if I was offensive. But this forum does have the word war in it, so maybe I was just playing to the gallery.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

That's cool. Sorry if I was offensive. But this forum does have the word war in it, so maybe I was just playing to the gallery.

No, quite honestly you're being an absolute moron and have been all over the place since you opened this thread.

- The Bill of Rights are a joke.

- Oh, it was the Revolutionary War? Sorry.

- You've not explained to this foreigner (yet of anonymous origin) the second or third amendment.

- Oh, I don't take issue with the third amendment now.

- Tell me the difference between the third and fourth amendment.

- I wasn't asking about the fourth amendment.

- Those are fuzzy definitions.

- The thread title was poorly worded, sorry.

- Oh now I understand you. You're upset that I'm a foreigner who knows absolutely nothing about a founding document of your country, but have ridiculed it. Please, don't be offended. The Bill of Rights are not a joke. Just two or three of them?

I am not an American. I knew a few of the Amendments, but only read them today in full as part of a memorization exercise in a book I'm reading.

Your understanding of American history, your audacity, your contrived curiosity in this, and your memory are all a joke.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by MacNStein

Do you really want this, or are you just being funny?

illustrating the irony of this thread with a little sarcasm. However, it would not surprise me to know such a critique exists.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

No, quite honestly you're being an absolute moron and have been all over the place since you opened this thread.

Your understanding of American history, your audacity, your contrived curiosity in this, and your memory are all a joke.

A very emotive post, ebuddy.

You are just upset. Relax. It is only because I pointed out your pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook and fuzzy reasoning, and these two observersations have laid bare your comprehension problems and weak intellect. Someone who prides themselves on their own opinions is easily unbalanced by such observations.

I am sorry.

Confirming my opinion is the fact that you have also attacked my memory, about which you know nothing, and made the ad hominem argument that my own country of origin must somehow bear on the legitimacy of my opinion of the Third Amendment.

I think you are probably quite young. So here's some advice. When someone suggests (and I have only insinuated) that you are stupid, don't show so much emotion in defending yourself; firstly, because it can lead to errors of logic (like yours) that yield a negative return on your intentions (to prove that you are not stupid) and secondly, because it suggests such suspicions are something of a sore point for you, that you have encountered them (with reason) before, that you yourself perhaps share them.

[BRussell]

Originally Posted by vmarks

Ulrich, what I think you're missing is this:

Some of the founders of the nation were loathe to write a Bill of Rights at all.

Their position was, it is unnecessary to enumerate rights when the People have all rights and government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. Enumerating rights then makes the ones defined and the ones undefined can be ignored was the fear.

The position that won out was that enumerating rights of the People as prohibitions on the government would prevent the government from doing specific things that were heinous and opposed to the hard-won Liberty.

So the goal then isn't trying to combine amendments and let some potential events fall under one word in an amendment, but instead be very pointed about preventing specific violations.

Rather than 'didn't you get that you couldn't be housed here, effectively seizing my property when we said 'NO SEIZURE'?' it's 'You shall not be housed and fed here against my will. FULL STOP.'

Which is why the reading into the language and divining new meanings is so offensive to folks who know it to have been written with a literalist intent.

This is what I don't get. 99% of the time, so-called activists judges are reading people's rights more broadly than their critics want.

People who complain about activist judges reading too many individual rights into the constitution are doing exactly what those opposed to an enumerated list of rights feared would happen: reading them as excluding other rights. Critics of broad interpretations of the constitution want individuals to have less rights, and the government to have more power.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Ulrich Kinbote

A very emotive post, ebuddy.

You are just upset. Relax. It is only because I pointed out your pseudo-intellectual gobbledygook and fuzzy reasoning, and these two observersations have laid bare your comprehension problems and weak intellect.

Okay, Ulrich. Your elitism noted.

Someone who prides themselves on their own opinions is easily unbalanced by such observations.

You mean opinions like; "US Bill of Rights is a joke", then spent the rest of the thread stumbling over your hasty rhetoric, back-peddling, and misinformation? I think some introspect is in order brother.

I am sorry.

I know. I've heard that before.

Confirming your opinion of me is the fact that I have ridiculed a founding document of your country, about which I know nothing, and made the irrefutable argument that my own country of origin has bearing on the legitimacy of my opinion of the Third Amendment as it facilitates a potential and apparent lack of knowledge on the subject.

fixed.

I think you are probably quite young.

Not by most standards, but this wouldn't be the first time you've spoken hastily in ignorance.

So here's some advice. When someone suggests (and I have only insinuated) that you are stupid, don't show so much emotion in defending yourself; firstly, because it can lead to errors of logic (like yours) that yield a negative return on your intentions (to prove that you are not stupid) and secondly, because it suggests such suspicions are something of a sore point for you, that you have encountered them (with reason) before, that you yourself perhaps share them.

What you mean with this long-winded dissertation is that I've gotten under your skin a bit.

good.

[Ulrich Kinbote]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Okay, Ulrich. Your elitism noted.


You mean opinions like; "US Bill of Rights is a joke", then spent the rest of the thread stumbling over your hasty rhetoric, back-peddling, and misinformation? I think some introspect is in order brother.

I know. I've heard that before.

fixed.

Not by most standards, but this wouldn't be the first time you've spoken hastily in ignorance.

What you mean with this long-winded dissertation is that I've gotten under your skin a bit. good.

My view that the relevance of the Third is questionable is shared by other posters, it can be reasoned out, and is certainly open to debate. It is childish to single me out for criticism for an opinion that is so widespread. It weakens your whole silly attack of me. This attack was started, as anyone will see if they follow up these posts, after I had apologised for offending anyone. It is mean-spirited, and is motivated by the fact I called you earlier on your crappy and dumbass defence of the Third.

And as for my poor knowledge of the American Bill of Rights, that does not differentiate me from the average non-American either. Probably not even from the average American.

My fundamental position, too, has been very consistent. I don't know what you mean by back-peddling. I do, however, have the humility to admit when I am wrong. You do not, or you would have explained or admitted the logical flaws I pointed out in my last post.

So your post just leaves me wondering why your intellectual pride hasn't yet broken down in the face of the failed attempt to sound intelligent on which it is based. You take the arguments you cannot answer to and simply rewrite them to suit your purposes. And then a dashing of smilies, as if you were celebrating the fact you have been trounced and are an idiot.

Honest to God, I've never seen anything so pathetic ebuddy.

This conversation is over.

You are a terminal fool.