[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
At the time of the Revolution, it was a clear priority, but there has never been an instance of the government attempting to do so in over 200 years of existence. Old law, serving a different time. A forgotten amendment.
[/quote]
I would say the complete opposite. There’s never been an instance of quartering soldiers BECAUSE OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT.
Just because you’re not hearing about it in the news doesn’t mean it’s forgotten.
The third amendment is just as applicable today in our military-industrial complex than ever before. Obscure, but certainly not forgotten.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
At the time of the Revolution, it was a clear priority, but there has never been an instance of the government attempting to do so in over 200 years of existence. Old law, serving a different time. A forgotten amendment.
I would say the complete opposite. There’s never been an instance of quartering soldiers BECAUSE OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT.
Just because you’re not hearing about it in the news doesn’t mean it’s forgotten.
The third amendment is just as applicable today in our military-industrial complex than ever before. Obscure, but certainly not forgotten.[/quote]
Thanks to ED (giggles like a schoolgirl) we needn’t concern ourselves with the 3rd amendment. No, they won’t quarter soldiers in your home, they’ll instead ED your home and turn it into a barracks.
Nothing would subvert and destroy our natural rights faster than this radically stuipid approach - cloaked in an unserious romanticism, it does nothing except get people killed and ravage property. And Jefferson’s school-girl crush on the French Revolution is the perfect example of why his opinion on the matter was, in fact, manure.
[/quote]
I love TJ, but I think that’s a pretty fair statement. Perhaps that’s why I’m an evil Hamiltonian.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
At the time of the Revolution, it was a clear priority, but there has never been an instance of the government attempting to do so in over 200 years of existence. Old law, serving a different time. A forgotten amendment.
I would say the complete opposite. There’s never been an instance of quartering soldiers BECAUSE OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT.
Just because you’re not hearing about it in the news doesn’t mean it’s forgotten.
The third amendment is just as applicable today in our military-industrial complex than ever before. Obscure, but certainly not forgotten.[/quote]
Fuck yeah, I love the third amendment. On Independence Day I often opine to my friends that we should all go home and execute our right to keep soldiers the hell out of our houses.
No, I’m not being sarcastic. Yes, I am kind of a weird guy.
[quote]conorh wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
At the time of the Revolution, it was a clear priority, but there has never been an instance of the government attempting to do so in over 200 years of existence. Old law, serving a different time. A forgotten amendment.
I would say the complete opposite. There’s never been an instance of quartering soldiers BECAUSE OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT.
Just because you’re not hearing about it in the news doesn’t mean it’s forgotten.
The third amendment is just as applicable today in our military-industrial complex than ever before. Obscure, but certainly not forgotten.
Fuck yeah, I love the third amendment. On Independence Day I often opine to my friends that we should all go home and execute our right to keep soldiers the hell out of our houses.
No, I’m not being sarcastic. Yes, I am kind of a weird guy.[/quote]
I often do the same by barbecuing large quantities of meat and then getting belligerently drunk.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jefferson was never the agitator he claimed was so important in a free society - before, during, or after his Presidency. His life and property were never to be sacrificed in the name of perpetual revolution - but he was happy to encourage it and enjoyed the show.[/quote]
I’m sure this point has been made ad nauseum, but Jefferson and the rest of the founders were the Forbes top 100 of their time. They stood to gain a tremendous amount in finding freedom from Britain, but subsequent revolution would only serve to impoverish them all.
[quote]borrek wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jefferson was never the agitator he claimed was so important in a free society - before, during, or after his Presidency. His life and property were never to be sacrificed in the name of perpetual revolution - but he was happy to encourage it and enjoyed the show.
I’m sure this point has been made ad nauseum, but Jefferson and the rest of the founders were the Forbes top 100 of their time. They stood to gain a tremendous amount in finding freedom from Britain, but subsequent revolution would only serve to impoverish them all.
[/quote]
George Washington certainly made out pretty well. He was a surveyor, who surveyed himself the best piece of Virginia. Unlikely that he would have put that on the line a second time.
It’s a truism that radical revolutionaries become staunch conservatives once they have accomplished their radical revolution.
[quote]borrek wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jefferson was never the agitator he claimed was so important in a free society - before, during, or after his Presidency. His life and property were never to be sacrificed in the name of perpetual revolution - but he was happy to encourage it and enjoyed the show.
I’m sure this point has been made ad nauseum, but Jefferson and the rest of the founders were the Forbes top 100 of their time. They stood to gain a tremendous amount in finding freedom from Britain, but subsequent revolution would only serve to impoverish them all.
[/quote]
Jefferson died a pauper, and it was only on the strength of his reputation that Monticello wasn’t reposessed in his lifetime.
[quote]Varqanir wrote:
borrek wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Jefferson was never the agitator he claimed was so important in a free society - before, during, or after his Presidency. His life and property were never to be sacrificed in the name of perpetual revolution - but he was happy to encourage it and enjoyed the show.
I’m sure this point has been made ad nauseum, but Jefferson and the rest of the founders were the Forbes top 100 of their time. They stood to gain a tremendous amount in finding freedom from Britain, but subsequent revolution would only serve to impoverish them all.
George Washington certainly made out pretty well. He was a surveyor, who surveyed himself the best piece of Virginia. Unlikely that he would have put that on the line a second time.
It’s a truism that radical revolutionaries become staunch conservatives once they have accomplished their radical revolution.
[/quote]
One thing I forgot to mention in my original post re: 3rd Amendment, is that it, like the others was (is) ‘guaranteed’ by the 2nd Amendment… (at least in those days before “death from the heavens”).
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
One thing I forgot to mention in my original post re: 3rd Amendment, is that it, like the others was (is) ‘guaranteed’ by the 2nd Amendment… (at least in those days before “death from the heavens”).[/quote]
Small sidetrack.
For millennia we imagined the power of God to be just that: fire and death raining down from the heavens. We’ve achieved the Yahweh version of that power through carpet bombing, but I still prefer the Jovian version: one shot, one kill. Maybe not as dramatic as dropping a seven-ton daisy cutter, but far less wasteful.
It could be argued that Lee Harvey Oswald et al. did more to influence the course of history with four 6.5 caliber bullets, than Nixon ever did with 2400 tons of bombs.
Reading this thread, it occurs to me how deficient my knowledge of American history really is. Any suggestions on books that could alleviate this problem? I know it is almost a non sequitur these days, but I would prefer non revisionist history suggestions.
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
One thing I forgot to mention in my original post re: 3rd Amendment, is that it, like the others was (is) ‘guaranteed’ by the 2nd Amendment… (at least in those days before “death from the heavens”).[/quote]
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there has ever been a legal case of self-defense with a firearm pertaining to protection of constitutional rights as opposed to just the plain ol’ corporeal self?
When the shit really hits the fan, your right to bear arms - or to be free from search - only goes as far as the man behind the trigger of the gun pointed at you thinks it does. I’m sure judicial review and exoneration don’t count for much to Randy Weaver.
[quote]borrek wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
One thing I forgot to mention in my original post re: 3rd Amendment, is that it, like the others was (is) ‘guaranteed’ by the 2nd Amendment… (at least in those days before “death from the heavens”).
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there has ever been a legal case of self-defense with a firearm pertaining to protection of constitutional rights as opposed to just the plain ol’ corporeal self?
When the shit really hits the fan, your right to bear arms - or to be free from search - only goes as far as the man behind the trigger of the gun pointed at you thinks it does. I’m sure judicial review and exoneration don’t count for much to Randy Weaver.
[/quote]
More than one thing was/is implicit in the 2nd amendment. All of the Founding Fathers and thinkers of that era believed the RKBA to be a part of the lex naturalis and thought that outlawing self-defense by outlawing RKBA was one of the worst tyrannies, which it clearly is. Imagine if someone broke into your house at night with the intent to pull a Willie Horton and it was against the law to defend yourself with a firearm or even a knife (which is impossible if there’s more than one Willie Horton trying to break in).
[quote]borrek wrote:
Out of curiosity, does anyone know if there has ever been a legal case of self-defense with a firearm pertaining to protection of constitutional rights as opposed to just the plain ol’ corporeal self?
[/quote]
I can think of no better example than the Battle of Athens, Tennessee.
I would say the complete opposite. There’s never been an instance of quartering soldiers BECAUSE OF THE THIRD AMENDMENT. [/quote]
You miss the point. The point is that the 3rd Amendment is clearly a relic of history, which by “progressive” lights means that it is a likely part of the Constitution that no longer is relevant. After all, there has never even been a serious attempt by the government at any level to quarter soldiers.
But, the point is a “progressive” would have no trouble dusting off an antiquated, otherwise unknown law that has never, ever been invoked to stand in defiance of Bush in my above scenario - even as there is a “progressive” argument that the 3rd Amendment is a dead letter.
The question is not for someone like you or me to determine whether the 3rd Amendment remains valid - I think we both do - the question is how does a “progressive” square the circle of resurrecting an otherwise dusty, crusty, irrelevant law from a bygone era to challenge a law they don’t like inj the modern era (the Bush hypothetical)?
Nothing would subvert and destroy our natural rights faster than this radically stuipid approach - cloaked in an unserious romanticism, it does nothing except get people killed and ravage property. And Jefferson’s school-girl crush on the French Revolution is the perfect example of why his opinion on the matter was, in fact, manure.
I love TJ, but I think that’s a pretty fair statement. Perhaps that’s why I’m an evil Hamiltonian.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Reading this thread, it occurs to me how deficient my knowledge of American history really is. Any suggestions on books that could alleviate this problem? I know it is almost a non sequitur these days, but I would prefer non revisionist history suggestions.[/quote]
Paul Johnson, A History of the American People.
Incidentally, he does not treat Jefferson kindly.
Jack_Dempsey has enlighened me: MacPherson on Lincoln and Civil War, but Goodwin is a more entertaining read.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
JEATON wrote:
Reading this thread, it occurs to me how deficient my knowledge of American history really is. Any suggestions on books that could alleviate this problem? I know it is almost a non sequitur these days, but I would prefer non revisionist history suggestions.
Paul Johnson, A History of the American People.
Incidentally, he does not treat Jefferson kindly.
Jack_Dempsey has enlighened me: MacPherson on Lincoln and Civil War, but Goodwin is a more entertaining read.[/quote]
I enjoy Paul Johnson, but I do think it verges on revisionist, as Mr. Johnson is English and his book shows a lack of the type of flattery that most Americans put on our history. Personally I think that makes it a little more relevant.
