47 votes

What About The Third Amendment

What do you know about the third amendment? Here's a video to help you understand why the third amendment is so importment?

http://youtu.be/F584p5kJL-U



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Misses the point.

While the problems he pointed out were occasionally present, that wasn't the big deal behind the third amendment.

The major issue was that the soldier the king's army forcibly borded at a colonist's home also served as a spy. He sat there using up a bed, chewing up the food, and overhearing everything that was said in the house. Then the next time he was called to duty or drill he would also report anything suspicious he heard.

This made it very hard to organize anything political.

The modern equivalent is police spyware, such as keyloggers, installed in your computer. It resides in your property, chews up resources (processing power and network bandwidth), spies on your communications and records, and reports to the powers-that-be. Goodbye right to privacy and the requirement for probable cause, hello fishing expedition.

= = = =
"Obama’s Economists: ‘Stimulus’ Has Cost $278,000 per Job."

That means: For each job "created or saved" about five were destroyed.

The 3rd amendment can help explain the 2nd...

Neat... another arrow in the quiver for liberty in the knowledge war...

9-11 Media Fakery: Did anyone die on 9-11?
http://www.cluesforum.info/

http://www.septemberclues.info/

9-11 Actors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE

Pysops.. media.. actors.. propagandists... disinfo agents.. fake videos.. fake photos

The 9th is sooooo important,

The 9th is sooooo important, why has it been so forgotten?

Mostly good, but...

The supposed quote about Yamamoto claiming "there would be a gun behind every blade of grass" as a reason not to try to invade the US is simply not true. It appears to have been made up with good intentions, but it is nonsense. The Japanese were hoping that a quick humiliating victory over the US navy would have the same effect that the Battle of Tsushima did on Russia in 1905. Japan did not have the ability to attack the mainland US in strength. They did not have the tonnage, fuel supplies, or even quantity of troops needed. They simply did not have the reach.

Subminal at 3:46

Anyone know what flashes at 3:46 after the Hitler comment?

The Third also has interesting implications for so-called

Eminent Domain.

The Fifth provides that "no property shall be taken for public use without just compensation."

It is from this that government here in the U.S. thinks it has the sovereign power of Eminent Domain.

The problem with this view by government is that in this country, the government is only sovereign with respect to foreign countries - NOT to the People. In the USA, the People are the sovereigns. Thus it is impossible for the government to have any claim of sovereignty over the rights of the People.

There is also an issue about what this power really is, it's true purpose, and when it is lawful to use it.

The word "imminent" and "eminent" have a common origin. The first being known in modern times to mean "impending or about to happen." The latter, meaning "primary, first, or hanging over."

It is my contention that the idea of Eminent Domain and the context of the Fifth and Third Amendments, means that this power is limited in two ways:

#1 - it can only be a taking for public USE.

Use is distinct from ownership or title. One can have a right of use, a usufruct, but not own property. This right can also be limited in scope, or even duration. The right does not usually include the right to transfer this right, or the right of disposal of the property itself.

There is nothing in the Fifth about transfer of ownership or title, only to take property for public USE.

The problem is most people focus on the word "take" to mean "transfer of title." But you can take possession of something, ONLY for use, and not as a matter of ownership. It is this distinction that is critical. And the 5th even highlights this distinction by declaring that the taking shall only be for a public USE, thus making it clear, that it does not confer any power to force sale of full ownership rights in property.

#2 - it must be for an emergency circumstance.

The purpose of the power is not to simply commandeer title to property because a government wants to build a road, school, or other public structure. The purpose of the power is to grant a limited violation of the individual right of full ownership over property for the short term need of having to deal with an emergency situation which threatens the life, liberty or property of the People.

An example of this would be repelling a foreign invasion, dealing with an insurrection or rebellion, perhaps maybe even responding to a natural disaster to rescue or recover victims, and provide them assistance.

More specifically, it could be necessary perhaps to conduct troop movements through your corn field, destroying part of it in the process. Perhaps your field is needed for an encampment as a prelude to a battle. Or your shop or house is needed for the camp, or as a medical station. These would be cases where it would be appropriate to temporarily take property for public use, as long of course, as the owner was justly compensated, for their lack of use during that same time. (and any damage to property as a result, if not requiring restoration upon returning the property)

On a smaller level, this is also how the militia could be pressed to put their personal armaments into service, or even themselves into service, for such emergencies, but of course, only if they are PAID to do so under the just compensation clause.

The Third Amendment limits this even further.

It requires that the owner of a house must consent to quartering of troops, even IF he is offered just compensation.

If the currently practiced theory of Eminent Domain were true and correct, if it can be used to permanently take property ownership and title, and not just for use, (and even now for mere "benefit" ala KELO) then the Third Amendment would be rendered completely moot.

All the government would need to do in order to violate the 3rd, would be to seize your house in an Eminent Domain action and you would have no say, because you'd no longer be the owner and you couldn't refuse sale.

The 3rd Amendment exposes that the current idea of Eminent Domain is entirely wrong, and is much abused, even before KELO.

Of course the implications of this are vast.

Instead of using force to lay down roads, or erect public buildings, governments would have to use reason. They'd have to offer a price you are willing to accept, and not be able to force you to sell. Or, they may have to negotiate a rent or right-of-way with you, AND compensate you for your loss of use of the property.

Certainly, things wouldn't get built the way they do now, but they'd still get done if they are truly needed. Force is not an option because you "want" to accomplish something. It is barbaric and uncivilized.

Understanding the implications of the 3rd amendment, and the nature of the words of the 5th, are key to understanding the true limits of government power in this area.

Brilliant Analysis

Being as intimate as one can be with Kilo v. New London, without having actually been in the court room, I have to say that yours is a brilliant analysis. Thank you. :-)

~ Engage in the war of attrition: http://pacalliance.us/redamendment/

Absolutely -- It's The Matter Of Principle

Yes. This superb analysis illustrates why the concept of Substantive Due Process acknowledged in Lochner may be found within the contours of the express provisions of the Bill of Rights. As Justice Douglas stated in Griswold v. Conn. the specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights have penumbras "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and sub-stance,". The right to privacy exists within this area, and/or, as Goldberg admitted in a concurring opinion in the same case, may be found in the context of the 9th.

samadamscw's excellent analysis ( and MichaelMcC's insightful comments above ) illustrate that the intended protections of the Bill of Rights are neither to be strictly constructed to the limits of narrow words, nor need they be anchorlessly adrift only discoverable or buried among newfangled 'living' policy initiatives.

The Substantive Due Process guarantees of the Constitution are understandable, though often implied, as original intent within the four corners of the text and history of the particular rights cataloged, ... including but not limited to.

Some crash test dummy is teaching us our rights?

The Dummy and Andrew Napalitano. The rest of the taking head seem clueless.

When Lincoln ordered the invasion of the South, he ordered the violation of the 3rd amendment.

If he didn't did, he halt it?

Free includes debt-free!

-1 for xtranormal

+1 for the topic.

No.7's picture

bump. +1

.

The individual who refuses to defend his rights when called by his Government, deserves to be a slave, and must be punished as an enemy of his country and friend to her foe. - Andrew Jackson

Granger, I PostedThis Article on January 27, 2013....Check It Ou

Granger, I PostedThis Article on January 27, 2013....Check It Out!

http://www.dailypaul.com/272243/with-all-the-uproar-over-gun...

Thank you emalvini

I'll let this post RIP.

Good find, Granger..

: )

((((ducky)))))

Rubber Duckie” is a bona-fide hit

“Rubber Duckie” is a bona-fide hit: in August of 1970 it made the Billboard Top 40 chart for pop/rock and stayed on for 7 weeks, peaking at number 16!

Free includes debt-free!

HA!

That was Ggggrrrreat. That's why I love ya, GGGRRRrrraanger.

Tiggers too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJFyz73MRcg&feature=youtube_g...

meekandmild's picture

Bump

Make me think.

TY meekandmild

Made me think too, about what PAF was talking about when he said we needed to ENFORCE the constitution.

Thanks

Good video.

TY anotherbody

Thank you

Granger - Thank You

for standing in Liberty :-)

Every American MUST know, at the very least, the Bill of Rights.

We are a nation of laws. How can we even begin to trust those we elect if they do not themselves abide by the 'Law of the Land', which is the Constitution.

This is why I mutter that we must *enforce* the Bill of Rights, the Constitution.

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

Thought of you when I posted this

Yes.. your ENFORCE is THE THIRD AMENDMENT. And know I KNOW.

((((((PAF))))))))