• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

3rd amendment or what in the hell

Fanatical Meat

Fanatical Meat

Lifer
So I’m no Constitutional Scholar however I was born in MA and I am familiar with it from school. I remember something about people in Boston being evicted from their homes so British troops could live there.
Also don’t I remember some conservative shit posters saying something about the third amendment during the Jade Helm moron convention?
Well today we have this:

1591399447562.png
 
I would think that it is up to the hotel owners to decide if the troops can stay. It's not like the troops commandeered the hotel.
 
It is a billing issue. The troops were staying at hotels using the reservations DC originally made for NG troops for coronavirus support. DC doesn't want them using those spots, so they told them to pay their own way or get out.
 
It must be that actually reading the 3rd Amendment is hard for some people.

"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. "

A hotel is not a "house". Gee that was hard. Is the asshole mayor the "owner" of the properties? No. Gee that was hard too.
 
ElFenix said:
i have no idea what the 3rd amendment has to do with this. a hotel isn't a home.
Click to expand...

It is private property.

So would you say businesses are exempt from the 3rd? Or do you think the third implies all private property?
 
imported_tajmahal said:
It must be that actually reading the 3rd Amendment is hard for some people.

"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. "

A hotel is not a "house". Gee that was hard. Is the asshole mayor the "owner" of the properties? No. Gee that was hard too.
Click to expand...
This ass hole mayor did this and now your mad......hahahaha
www.khou.com

D.C. mayor unveils 'Black Lives Matter' mural painted on street leading to White House

A massive BLM mural was painted on the newly unveiled Black Lives Matter Plaza located in a section of 16th Street.
www.khou.com www.khou.com
The mayor of Washingti=on DC is an amazing person!
 
FaaR said:
Sure it's a house. Why on earth wouldn't it be?

Btw, under citizens united, corps are people, so their property would therefore also be protected by the U.S. constitution. It's the law!
Click to expand...

Yeah but I doubt the Mayor owns the hotel
As said above seems more like a billing dispute
 
Fanatical Meat said:
Yeah but I doubt the Mayor owns the hotel
As said above seems more like a billing dispute
Click to expand...
Yeah, this isn't a 3a issue because a hotel isn't a "house," but because the mayor making the decision isn't the owner of the hotel.
Instead, this is more about the ongoing issue of the question of DC's autonomy. The feds couldn't do this in any of the States if a governor didn't want it. The mayor of DC is attempting to assert the same privilege.
 
Vic said:
Yeah, this isn't a 3a issue because a hotel isn't a "house," but because the mayor making the decision isn't the owner of the hotel.
Instead, this is more about the ongoing issue of the question of DC's autonomy. The feds couldn't do this in any of the States if a governor didn't want it. The mayor of DC is attempting to assert the same privilege.
Click to expand...
Why does DC have a mayor if the president overrules him on DC matters?

Is it the mayor's obligation to step in for a private company when they feel pressured to oblige to the whims of the federal govt? Was the hotel owner even aware of the 3rd amendment, that they could indeed refuse service to the federal govt?
 
The issue is DC was paying for the stays of National guard members helping with Covid. Then when National Guard to help with protestors came hotels put them in rooms that DC was paying for. DC said they will not pay for members that are assisting with the protests. Those members assisting got moved to other hotels.
 
[DHT]Osiris said:
Why does DC have a mayor if the president overrules him on DC matters?

Is it the mayor's obligation to step in for a private company when they feel pressured to oblige to the whims of the federal govt? Was the hotel owner even aware of the 3rd amendment, that they could indeed refuse service to the federal govt?
Click to expand...

Why does any city have a mayor if the state governor can overrule them on city matter? DC isn't part of any state, it is wholly controlled by the federal government. Without representation, I might add. As for the hotel owner, it seems the city was paying his bill, and the feds wouldn't.
 
Vic said:
Why does any city have a mayor if the state governor can overrule them on city matter? DC isn't part of any state, it is wholly controlled by the federal government. Without representation, I might add. As for the hotel owner, it seems the city was paying his bill, and the feds wouldn't.
Click to expand...
I don't know if wholly controlled by federal government is exactly accurate when Congress specifically has ultimate authority over DC. They could overrule the mayor. Interesting that Congress' authority here vs Trump's troop deployments theoretically sets up another legislative vs executive fight.

Though as stated, this is really a billing issue and none of this is relevant [yet].
 
Amused said:
It is private property.

So would you say businesses are exempt from the 3rd? Or do you think the third implies all private property?
Click to expand...
the third amendment has rarely been tested. you go back to the penumbral privacy cases like griswold and it just says the third amendment, no cite to a court case.

the only application i can think of is if the government told the hotel to cancel someone's stay - under the various cases concerning privacy (4th amendment, mostly) there is usually extended some sort of privacy right extended to temporary quarters with a right of possession - even if a limited one like a hotel.

if no one's stay was cancelled and the rack was being paid pursuant to the room rental agreement, i don't see how the third was violated. of course, i don't think that's what the mayor of DC was getting at (afaik she hasn't invoked the third amendment, it's just something being bandied by twitter users).

but no, i'm not a libertarian, i don't hold private property to be the most sacred thing around.

i think this is just twitter having wrongly latched onto something.
 
If money can be considered free speech and corporations are people and the 2nd can mean an individuals right to own a gun then I cannot imagine why a hotel cannot be considered a house.


That being said, as long as a normal payment is being made I don’t see what the issue is.
 
FaaR said:
Sure it's a house. Why on earth wouldn't it be?

Btw, under citizens united, corps are people, so their property would therefore also be protected by the U.S. constitution. It's the law!
Click to expand...
No, it's not a house. It's a business and it's not owned by the asshole mayor.
 
ivwshane said:
If money can be considered free speech and corporations are people and the 2nd can mean an individuals right to own a gun then I cannot imagine why a hotel cannot be considered a house.


That being said, as long as a normal payment is being made I don’t see what the issue is.
Click to expand...
You can consider it a planet, a dog or a tree. It's not, but that doesn't stop the ignorant from trying to apply the 3rd Amendment to it.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
You can consider it a planet, a dog or a tree. It's not, but that doesn't stop the ignorant from trying to apply the 3rd Amendment to it.
Click to expand...

Sure, as I said, the “ignorant” as you put it, also have made other ridiculous claims about other constitutional rights so I see no reason (other than political) why a Supreme Court couldn’t extrapolate a “house” to mean a hotel.

I’m sure if such a Supreme Court ruling benefited your team you’d be all for it though.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
It must be that actually reading the 3rd Amendment is hard for some people.

"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. "

A hotel is not a "house". Gee that was hard. Is the asshole mayor the "owner" of the properties? No. Gee that was hard too.
Click to expand...
Hahahahahahahahahahahaahah ... its fucking funny that you would willingly pretend to be this stupid in order to stand behind your Hair Fuhrer .. Oh man taj, you in deeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.
 
imported_tajmahal said:
No, it's not a house. It's a business and it's not owned by the asshole mayor.
Click to expand...
*asks google*

house

noun

/haʊs/
  1. 1.
    a building for human habitation, especially one that consists of a ground floor and one or more upper storeys.
    "a house of Cotswold stone"
...Hmm. Building for human habitation? Upper storeys? Well, a hotel seems to fit that description pretty much on the spot! (Note that the definition doesn't specify the building has to be a permanent residence in order to qualify as a house.)

You also seem very emotionally vested here. Fanboying for Dumpy is not a rational thing to do, man. He doesn't care about you. Not one iota, all he wants from you is your worship and adulation, that is all. You can tell from all the people around him who were the greatest people as long as they said nice things about him, and then changed into losers the instant they started criticizing him.

You really shouldn't be enabling con-men, dude. I mean, you can tell he's a con-man, can't you?
 
ElFenix said:
i have no idea what the 3rd amendment has to do with this. a hotel isn't a home.
Click to expand...

It may apply to hotels if they are not government-owned but I don't know. In any case it is up to the owners, not the government to act unless they request help or so I should think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top