Did you know that the Second Circuit applied the Third Amendment to the states of Connecticut, New York, and Vermont as of 1982?
While never appealed, apparently New Yorkers have a right not to quarter soldiers in their homes upon order of state.
I would also think it's an unauthorized taking (deprivation of property) under the constitution for the state to force you quarter soldiers or anyone else in your house.
An interesting overview of what government spends it money on.
At least he doesn't control the DEC campsite records.
Makes some valid points.
I was reading the constitution the other day, and the Forth Amendment peaked my interest. A lot of people have long said that Forth Amendment protects individuals from the right to be searched by government without a search warrant. But that’s not exactly what the text says …
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Maybe the founding fathers were instead implying that the purpose of the constitution was to protect the government from “ unreasonable searches and seizures” by individual citizens. After all, it’s only logical that the government would want to protect its assets from theft from the public. Government property after all belongs to the government, which represents all the people.
Likewise, one could argue that the government felt it necessary to restrict what kind of questions could be asked of it for national security and other purposes. Could “unreasonable searches” refer to public use of Freedom of Information laws? Maybe the founding fathers were just implementing an early standard to limit use of Freedom of Information, to ensure the public only had limited knowledge of what the government’s actual operations were. Maybe a citizen should be required to get a search warrant prior to getting even the most basic information on how government works. This would help protect national security.
After all, we do refer to prosecutors as “the people” in court cases, so there is a reason to believe that the founding fathers were actually referring to the government, and not individuals in drafting the Fourth Amendment. Likewise, maybe the people the Constitution was referring into First Amendment was the government and the government press, and not private citizens. To say nothing of the Second Amendment, etc.
While it seems unlikely that such an intent could be put in a document called the Bill of Rights, it’s really a bit hard to know for sure. Indeed, there are some people who may have some beliefs that the Fourth Amendment is actually a collective right, and only limits the citizen’s access to their government.
Here is what the preamble to the Bill of Rights says:
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
Still, people are free to believe what they believe about the Constitution. Ultimately though, the Courts, especially the Supreme Court will decide what the document really means.
A couple of years back, I decided to apply for Food Stamps and Welfare benefits, by using a free online website, provided by the state. Not because I was hungry or in need of assistance, but because I figured it would be interesting to see if there was any social services programs I could receive, and use for my benefit. I figured the form was free, and it didn’t obligate me to anything. I pay a lot in taxes, and it seemed only right that if I was eligible for a service, I should get my money’s worth.
Obviously, after I applied, I was promptly turned down. It said my income was well above the level allowed for a variety of social services. Despite the fact I pay a lot in taxes, I can’t get food stamps or other forms of social assistance that many poorer people can get. It’s not like I have a lot of extra money at the end of the month, and it really isn’t fair that some people, who are poor, can get government assistance that I am not allowed to get.
Why do some people get food stamps and government assistance, while hard-working people don’t get any assistance? They could transform these programs to be a basic benefit for all Americans. Why shouldn’t everyone get food stamps, especially if the they pay into the program? There are some months where that extra money — specifically earmarked to buy healthy food would be helpful.
I don’t particularly like having the government deciding how I should spend my money, but it would be a good incentive if the government gave everyone a few bucks every week to buy healthy food. Not everyone would take advantage of it, but it would give an incentive for eating healthy.
Yesterday, when you opened Twitter and Facebook up, it seemed like one post or another was calling for people to “do something” about the “menace of guns” in our country, or improve the accessibility of mental health in our county.
I don’t oppose some of the those suggestions. Indeed, certainly we could probably do more ensure affordable and stigma free counseling was available to all. The President’s health law that passed in 2009, with Mental Health parity and a requirement for all to subscribe to a basic health care plan.
We could also consider some gun control restrictions — but the restrictions have to be reasonable in effort, and need to provide a very high standard against someone owning or possessing a firearm. It would have to require a judge, a jury, and a beyond reasonable doubt standard — as does any restriction of a constitutional right. We can’t just have government officials, on a whim, restricting people’s rights, because they don’t like their politics.
We also can’t just start stigmatizing or persecuting individuals just because we don’t like their views. We saw too much of that after September 11th. Rather then embracing conformity, we should embrace diversity, and encourage people of diverse backgrounds to be active and engaged members of our society. We have to stand up against political persecution. They may not be coming after you today, but your in line next.
What I fear, and already see is the worst coming out of people. People want to do something — regardless of what it means for our civil liberties. They want to stop violence, even if they really can not do anything. Even if it means hurting regular folks, they feel they must do something. This is plain scary.
I think it’s time to step back, and put an end to this madness — the madness of saying we must do something now.
Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go.