• TheHarpyEagle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 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.)

      • Baku@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        6 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          6 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            6 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

            • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              6 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

    • essell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      6 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        6 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.

      • Encrypt-Keeper@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        6 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
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 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.