One of these days we’re going to see a Third Amendment challenge in federal court.

I predicted it for years, and for years people told me I was nuts. Twice I tried to sell articles based on this premise and was told in no uncertain terms to pound sand – once by JPFO fergodsake, which sorta made me doubt myself.

I’ve made a lot of political predictions and been proven wrong many times. This is not my forté. But just you watch – I’m not wrong about this. Reality is finally catching up with Joel’s paranoid imagination.

About Joel

You shouldn't ask these questions of a paranoid recluse, you know.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to One of these days we’re going to see a Third Amendment challenge in federal court.

  1. MamaLiberty says:

    I don’t see where that invasion had anything to do with “quartering soldiers,” not even close. It was a home invasion, pure and simple. Bloated, arrogant parasites squatted for a little while. At least they didn’t eat up all the food and drink all the booze, then bust out all the walls and trash the rest of the place. (I’m guessing here, since that wasn’t reported.)

    In any case, per that third amendment, all the gov. has to do is pass some “law” to make it all hunky dory anyway. There’s a “war” on you know, and we are the enemies.

    “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.”_

    See they can do anything they want, and sometimes they even pretend to justify it with “laws.”

    But I am very curious why they unhooked the TV and game thing… What were they actually DOING? They obviously were not looking out the window all that time.

  2. Joel says:

    I don’t predict it’ll win, ML. Only that it’ll happen. 🙂

  3. MamaLiberty says:

    You predict WHAT will happen? What will/won’t “win?” The invasions are already happening, and have been for some time. I’m saying that this sort of petty vandalism has nothing to do with “quartering soldiers” or the third amendment.

    And the ultimate point is that the “amendments” never meant a damn thing or had anything to do with our liberty to start with. sigh Once the “rulers” were given the power to “rule,” there was no limit to the power they could assume. The “constitution” and self ownership are mutually exclusive, and nothing whatsoever can change that. You either own yourself, or you don’t. If you own yourself, you don’t “need” any stinking constitution. 🙁

    It’s always been interesting to me that the 2A is the only one without a weasel phrase… unless you take the “militia” statement as that, of course. But all the rest of them have some version of “reasonable,” or “as prescribed by law” or some out for the “rulers” to do whatever anyway.

    And, of course, the weasel words and exceptions have been used generously from the beginning. It was planned that way…

    And the only thing to be done about it is to remove that power… to take back self ownership… to debunk the idea that anybody has any legitimate authority AT ALL to control the lives and property of others. Until then, the troops will move in, or do any damned thing they please because, ultimately, most people will ALLOW it… believing that somehow they actually do have that authority, even if they are abusing it.

  4. Joel says:

    Deep breath, ML. Calm blue ocean. 🙂

    You and I are on the same page. Like you and many TUAK regulars I don’ need no steenking constitution or court to tell me what my rights are. But lots of fine (if naive) people still lean on the constitution, just as they keep voting for politicians in the hope that this time they’ll actually get a conscience and do their constitutional duty. For such people, federal court cases are important.

    All I’m saying, and maybe I should have been more specific, is that there is an increasing number of stories in which militarized police evacuate and occupy the homes of people who are accused of no crime, completely without reference to any warrant, for whatever purpose and period of time they choose. If that’s not quartering troops, I don’t know what you call it. (troops quartered in private homes in the 18th century also routinely practiced casual vandalism – not to mention theft and rape.) Those law enforcement organizations are frequently sued after the fact. Sooner or later those cases will find their way into federal courts, and sooner or later somebody’s going to try to challenge the practice on third amendment grounds. I don’t predict that the challenges will win, though that would be nice. I do predict that they’ll be tried.

  5. MamaLiberty says:

    I understand that, Joel. That’s just the problem. By going to “court,” the bogus “authority” is encouraged and reinforced. People then don’t question the legitimacy of the state authority, just continue to believe they must elect/hire the “right people” to wield that authority.

    When people stop ALLOWING it… by whatever means, then there will be some hope of ending the invasions and every other evil practice by our would-be masters.

    Not saying it would be easy, comfortable or in any way safe to do that, of course. Just that it is the only actual remedy. And the really good news is that more people seem to be understanding THAT these days.

    Every time someone defies the mala prohibita “law,” carries without a “permit,” builds something without asking nanny’s permission, a thousand or even a million things thinking people do every day… it all counts. It is that kind of withdrawal of the bogus authority that has to come first, naturally. Just as you and I live our whole lives… and you are a perfect example of that person.

    Once people are comfortable with some critical thinking and deciding for themselves… they can advance eventually to shooting the bastards.

    We’re not there yet…

  6. But I am very curious why they unhooked the TV and game thing… What were they actually DOING? They obviously were not looking out the window all that time.

    Unplugging electrical devices? That’s an easy one. They were doing things they didn’t want the NSA to know about. 🙂

    And Joel, I’m with you on the observation in the first place. Sure, anything court-related that actually happens may be wholly “sound and fury, signifying nothing”…except that it is still an indicator that someone else is progressing along the path and is no longer strictly trapped at “it can’t happen here”. Even if I can’t personally support either, I’d still prefer the extra breathing room of actual minarchism to this no-longer-creeping-but-full-scale-sprinting totalitarianism that so many seem so hellbent on these days.

    My own Third Amendment interest is a bit more as a strict completism thing. When I’m working on someone to get over the “can’t happen here” bump, I love to point out that the government afflicting us (to use a Grigg-ism) has already violated the entirety of the Bill of Rights, not just one or two parts. (Most people, at least, seem aware of, and are irritated by, one or two parts, even if they don’t yet acknowledge the rest.) The least obvious part of that for most people seems to be the Third Amendment, and I’ve long had to work at it to get the image across. In that sense, at least, a few actual court cases would help make the point. 🙂

    In the end, of course, people have to let go of the whole thing, because The Big Loophole is woven into the very fabric of the system’s existence, and politics can never be the solution to the problem if politics is the problem. But I, for one, can also personally attest that this journey takes time for some*, and recognizing that we’re even past the point of the Third Amendment–involuntarily housing the standing army–just might knock over the tipping point of illusions for a certain kind of thick head that I happen to recognize well.

    ____________________________
    * for which, ML, I will always owe you a debt of gratitude. Your patience with me paid off!

  7. MamaLiberty says:

    Bless you, Kevin. I’m sorry that my patience with this is growing thin. sigh

    I live in a place where people adamantly understand at least some of their inalienable authority to bear arms and defend themselves, yet have unquestioned belief in government subsidies from stolen goods for farmers and ranchers, “taxes” to support government “schools,” etc. Sometimes I just want to tear out my hair.

    But it seems to me that it is most important to “cut to the chase” and challenge all of these folks with the idea that they are the only ones with any legitimate authority over their lives. Time is indeed getting short. The question I keep asking in these conversations… By what legitimate authority? And NONE can answer me rationally.

  8. Bear says:

    Just so you know, Joel, someone filed a third amendment lawsuit last year. Even nastier than this case- cops arrested the family for not allowing them to takeovr and occupy the house for a stake-out. They moved in and set up house once the owners were out of the way. (MamaLiberty; note that these folks tried to resist the thugs. They kicked in the door and took him down at gunpoint. So some folks are trying.)

  9. MamaLiberty says:

    Oh, I do know that some folks are trying!! You are, I am, Joel definitely is… but even a lot of the people who are trying still are convinced that the government has the “authority” to “enforce the laws,” even when they disagree with the laws or the methods. It is that false belief that has to change. That “Most Dangerous Superstition,” as Larken Rose calls it. And it is precisely the state religion, the god of the state, that has been indoctrinated into most people of the world over the centuries.

    And it will go on, one way or another, until people can replace that god with their own individual sovereignty. The ray of hope is that so many people are starting to honestly question that religion, that god, not just complain about the priest’s morals and methods.

  10. Goober says:

    MamaLiberty:

    I grow tired of people acting shocked – SHOCKED IT TELL YOU – when people who they’ve willingly given unquestioned power over their lives, use that power to their own selfish desires.

    Chris Christie shut down a highway to punish a political opponent? Yawn…

    They freak the hell out like it is some abuse of their trust, and I just belly laugh, because who the hell thinks a guy like Christie sought out and took his power over the people of New Jersey for altruistic reasons? Who thinks that about any politician? He did it specifically so he could get the power to shut down highways, and people’s lives, on a whim. It’s his thing. It’s ALL of their things.. The very people who seek power over others are the last people on Earth to whom we should grant it, and yet our political system only allows for those people.

    The actual number of politicians who are in it to truly help people an make a difference are so few it is laughable that anyone thinks such a thing is common. And even those politicians aren’t excused, because they seek power to “help” people, usually at the expense of others.

    The biggest joke is that the “problems” that people bring up that would exist without a coercive, violent government are generally so much less than the “problems” we face as a result of our coercive, violent government that I just can’t even put it in words.

    “Without the police, people will prey on us!”

    “Yeah, and WITH the police, people will prey on you, anyway, and the police will also prey on you because they can, and you won’t be able to do anything about it to boot!”

    “Without the government, we won’t have roads!”

    At this point, i just sigh, because anyone that believes that the government is the only thing on Earth that knows how to build a road is so far gone…

    I usually try this on for size:

    “Without the government, 150 million people wouldn’t have been slaughtered in war, concentration camps, famine, and purging in the 20th century. You can fear roving motorcycle gangs of gasoline thieves all you want. I’m going to just keep on fearing government, thanks much.”

  11. MamaLiberty says:

    Just think, though… Goober, it doesn’t make a particle of difference how pure the intentions of the rulers… none. They do not have any legitimate authority to make or enforce rules for anyone – with a possible exception of those few fools who would truly WANT them to do so. Untangled from the matrix, I don’ think there would be many of them.

    Altruism is a deadly disease, and has nothing whatsoever to do with what is good, right and honorable. Altruism is the evil lie the “rulers” use to bludgeon people into false guilt over having their own life, opinion, needs and desires. FALSE guilt for clinging to the slightest inclination to be a sovereign individual, with rights and needs and interests of their own.

    I’d far rather the “rulers” be ugly, corrupt, malevolent in the extreme instead of “altruistic,” self righteous smooth talkers who can convince people they are being tortured and killed “for their own good.”

  12. Expat says:

    Well these posts are one good reason the internet will never be censored. You all vent here and feel good about it. Nothing else happens.
    You do know your rights, whatever you might think they might be, extend just as far as the barrel of the gun pointed at you – right? It was never, ever different.
    It’s just now the cops have the resources to send out SWAT for every warrant, dope bust and dog fight. Officer safety is paramount. Not yours. Once you give them the resources they will always use them.
    One thing I’ve learned living all over the world is the written word counts for jack shit. It’s what the guys with the guns are like and American cops are the biggest assholes in the world.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *