3rd amendment or what in the hell

[TheVrolok]

It's a business and as such loses some of the Constitutional protections that a persons house has.

I'm assuming you haven't spent much time around colleges and universities, or have much depth in understanding the English language. "House" is hardly exclusive to single family unit occupancy.

For some time I stayed in a house configured for 797 occupants.

What does it being owned by a corporation have to do with it? It's private property, and the SCOTUS has already ruled corporations can be "people too."

 

[BoomerD]

I'm assuming you haven't spent much time around colleges and universities, or have much depth in understanding the English language. "House" is hardly exclusive to single family unit occupancy.

For some time I stayed in a house configured for 797 occupants.

What does it being owned by a corporation have to do with it? It's private property, and the SCOTUS has already ruled corporations can be "people too."

IMO, that last bit is one of the worst USSC decisions. Unless/until a corporation can be imprisoned for its illegal actions, it remains a business entity with none of the protections afforded to "people."

 

[MtnMan]

i have no idea what the 3rd amendment has to do with this. a hotel isn't a home.

It is business and private property, and a business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

 

[TheVrolok]

It is business and private property, and a business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

Well except for protected classes, of course.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well except for protected classes, of course.

Even that is limited. If someone who is protected goes in and disrupts whatever operation, there would be no civil rights issue. I appreciate that most realize this but on occasion, there have been some bad results in exercising "rights".

 

[Thump553]

Why should DC have to pay to house soldiers that it doesn't want? The DC mayor's actions were fully within her rights-in fact it was her DUTY to do so if she is to be a fiscally responsible steward of DC's coffers.

It was a typical Donnie move-take action and pass the bill onto someone else. Here it was a black female Democrat, so he hates her for at least three reasons.

No constitutions issues, third amendment or otherwise-that I see.

 

[ElFenix]

It is business and private property, and a business has the right to refuse service to anyone.

which is not the third amendment

 

[MtnMan]

which is not the third amendment

Correct, it is property rights. They don't have to bake you a cake or rent you a room.

 

[ElFenix]

Correct, it is property rights. They don't have to bake you a cake or rent you a room.

even if we take that as correct, what does it have with the claim in the OP that the third amendment somehow prevents the government from using hotel rooms to house soldiers? i've seen no claim that the rooms were pressed into service. the mayor isn't the person with possession of the room.

 

[zinfamous]

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.

maybe reading what the mayor actually did is hard for some people. Oh my, imagine that. Taj said another stupid thing.

Why is she an asshole, by the way?

 

[TheVrolok]

Why is she an asshole, by the way?

You know that women with power intimidate him.

 

[ElFenix]

here's the mayor's letter. if the third amendment were implicated, don't you think she'd mention it?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1268895206713307138

 

[zinfamous]

No, it's not a house. It's a business and it's not owned by the asshole mayor.

why is the mayor an asshole?

Do you actually understand what the issue is, here?

 

[zinfamous]

*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?

This is actually very relevant. The language of the 3rd is "house," Not home.

We generally accept a direct distinction between the two words. Home is considered your house, privately owned, where you grew up, etc.

House simply means "where you live," where anyone can live, ant any given amount of time. It can pretty much be all sorts of shelters.

If the language of the 3rd were to be interpreted literally, as some staunch conservatives demand that the constitution be interpreted, it should be easy to argue that a hotel is, indeed, a house, as are many other things. A hotel can certainly be privately owned, even if it is a business, and enforcing the 3rd up to the discretion of the owner.

...but the mayor never invoked the 3rd because that isn't what the dispute is. So, it isn't being challenged, though it's easy to assume it is, even for the Derp army that marches for Hair Fuhrer, because no president has challenged the Constitution as thoroughly as he has, and in far less time than all but 1 president has ever served.

 

[ElFenix]

If the language of the 3rd were to be interpreted literally, as some staunch conservatives demand that the constitution be interpreted, it should be easy to argue that a hotel is, indeed, a house, as are many other things.

it's not that crabbed. basically, the courts decided that the 4th amendment extends to leases, rentals, and even short term tenancies like hotels. but that protection extends to the posesssory interest. so the one 3rd amendment case i can find, where striking prison guards who where housed at the prison were evicted so that the national guardsmen who were brought in to man the prison could be housed, had the summary judgment entered against them overturned on appeal, because of how 4th amendment jurisprudence had gone. not sure how that went back down at the trial court afterward.

afaik the supreme court has never weighed in on the 3rd amendment.

 

[interchange]

There's never been a 3a case before. Open season on interpretation. Anyway, from what I understand the 3a is actually on the side of Bowser if relevant at all. The converse would be ordering the hotels to house the soldiers which would be the exact thing the amendment is designed to stop (assuming the hotels would qualify as houses).