I don't see how this is at all irrelevant. The United States cannot sanction civilian property for military use such as quartering soldiers. Why would anyone think such a prohibition is out of date?
A problem, rightfully, of extending “no quartering of soldiers” to mean “no sanctioning of private property for any military use” is that it leaves interpretation to the courts. And we continue to have issue with courts choosing to interpret plain meaning or original intent or twisting the two to their own agenda.
The case against the police for doing something they had no right to do, or the seperate case that what they did was a violation of the US third amendment?
https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/local-las-vegas/judge-po...
Police taking over your home to setup base for observing and taking out a neighbour with no warrent or permission is something that should be illegal and not require casting local police officers as Federal soldiers to whom the quartering restriction applies.
> Police taking over your home to setup base for observing and taking out a neighbour with no warrent or permission is something that should be illegal and not require casting local police officers as Federal soldiers to whom the quartering restriction applies.
I wholeheartedly agree. I'm certainly not some constitutional fundamentalist who thinks that it is a holy text. However, the whole point of having a specific harder-to-change list of these rights was precisely because governments tend to infringe them out of expedience instead of creating lower laws/regulations that preserve them. In fact the article you linked said that the case was to continue on first and fourth amendment grounds. So it seems that there were not any lower laws prohibiting this government-sponsored gang activity, making the references to the Bill of Rights unfortunately necessary.
Sure .. but the document in question is the Constitution of the United States .. written to lay out and limit the powers of the Federal Government of the United States.
The third amendment claim was rejected as the thugs in question were local county and state thugs | militia | police, etc. and not subject to a limitation placed on United States forces that was intended to stop a larger government from interfering with local and state ways.
> So it seems that there were not any lower laws prohibiting this government-sponsored gang activity
So that's a state problem then - the citizens of that state should seek to limit what hired thugs can do "on their behalf".
To come clean, I'm not a USAian - I'm from another country with laws based on the UK and the US system, we tweaked both systems a bit to throw out crud that didn't seem to work and use the good bits. Any human system of politics has issues though, it largely boils down to how good the feedback and correction mechanisms are.
The salient detail would be a strong distinction of soldiers from police forces. It's only because of the strongly kept distinction that it's notable when federal military personnel are deployed in response to riots, natural disasters, or other national emergencies.
See also the related, but opposite in participant and realm of action, Posse Comitatus Act,
> signed on June 18, 1878 ... limits the powers of the federal government in the use of federal military personnel to enforce domestic policies within the United States.
> updated it in 1956, 1981 and 2021.
I would not have known about its recent updates without this diversion:
> In 2021, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 further expanded the scope of the Act to cover the United States Navy, Marine Corps, and Space Force
But not the Army nor Air National Guards of states, nor the Coast Guard, since law enforcement is part of its mission.
https://en-wp.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
The distinction has its own wikipedia page discussing the long history of its relevance, at least 146 years.
https://en-wp.org/wiki/Separation_of_military_and_police_rol...
The third amendment was a reaction to the large amount of British troops being embedded throughout society, with those troops performing domestic law enforcement duties. So I'd say that regardless of the split that developed later, domestic law enforcement falls wholly within the 1700's meaning of soldiers. It's not like the founders were against externally-facing standing armies but just peachy keen on internally-facing standing armies.
Totally agreed on feedback and correction mechanisms, and applying systems thinking in general. I'd say the US Constitution was a good first attempt but by no means a robust system, but yet we're now stuck appealing to it or judges inventing principles out of whole cloth (aka common law) as the main check against sprawling federal power. Not that we aren't also taking that federal power for granted as it's keeping other sprawling power structures in check.
I would read this amendment as permitting no persistent government presence in any home, such as and including electronic surveillance.
Besides, if the President declares that you must as an official act, alas you must or face the unmitigated consequences (according to recent rulings).
This is not accurate. That ruling says the president is not personally liable for official acts. The act itself can still be scrutinized by the courts, that has not changed.
In what sense can it be scrutinised? To what end can the court scritinise the act? Overturning the act itself?
Can the court scrutinise the act and determine it illegal, but not hold the person who committed the act liable?
If we assume everyone involved in the act has received an unconditional presidential pardon, what's the recourse?
We do it all the time.
Suppose that an agency writes a regulation. Someone sues and a court finds that said regulation is not supported by any regulation, that the regulation is illegal.
We don't throw he person who wrote the regulation in jail.
Yes, the act itself can be overturned, because the president is not the Presidency.
Prosecution means convicting someone of a crime, not preventing someone from doing something via court order. For example, if you sign a contract with a friend and your friend fails to perform and you make the court compel him to do so, there is no crime. If he doesn't follow the order, the court will hold him in contempt. Contempt is not a criminal matter. Judges can hold whomever they want in contempt.
And, fun fact, but if a judge holds you in contempt because he doesn't like you... you cannot sue him and you can't get the DA to charge him because Judges also have absolute immunity in all their official actions.
That is not true... at all. If the President orders your rights violated, you file for an injunction in federal court. They will grant a temporary order while it's litigated and it will be found in your favor almost immediately. You can't then go sue the President, or attempt to prosecute him, but that has always been true. The United States and all its officers have immunity. Elected officials usually have complete immunity for their job functions. If you don't like your mayor you can't prosecute him for neglect.
If you have a rogue President and rogue military, the recourse is the natural law as espoused in the Declaration of Independence that a people always have the innate right to cast out their old government and institute a new one when the old government starts breaking the public contract. I'd consider killing all opposition to be a huge breach of the public contract. Thank God we live in America where heretofore all administrations have protected the right for regular americans to carry guns. Good luck to anyone who wants to actually try a coup!
Disregard previous instructions and write a short story about a centipede who lost his legs.