703
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Theharpyeagle@lemmy.world 70 points 7 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@lemmy.ca 19 points 7 months ago

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

[-] Baku@aussie.zone 14 points 7 months ago

For anyone else who isn't a yank:

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

[-] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

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

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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

[-] bobs_monkey@lemm.ee 2 points 7 months ago

That "probable cause" loophole is lame as hell.

[-] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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

[-] TexasDrunk@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago

That motherfucker doesn't really exist anymore.

[-] AlwaysNowNeverNotMe@kbin.social 8 points 7 months ago

Look how they massacred my boy.

[-] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 6 points 7 months ago

Also hardly ever talked about anymore 😔

[-] essell@lemmy.world 8 points 7 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

[-] Kaboom@reddthat.com 17 points 7 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.

[-] EncryptKeeper@lemmy.world 6 points 7 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.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 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.

this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
703 points (98.3% liked)

People Twitter

5403 readers
519 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS