Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And yet you probably endorse the use of eminent domain by the Keystone Pipeline.
No I don't. Find a quote where I do, I dare you.
I've argued (and will never relent on this point) that property taxes are the most heinous example of tyranny this country has. If I find taxing private property so vile, what the hell do you imagine my stance would be on the government simply taking it?
And where the hell did that straw man even come from? A screen name that means voluntaryist objectivist libertarian, and I "probably support eminent domain" for anything? Really?
People claim all sorts of silly things. Let me know when someone wins such a claim. BTW the amendment say "solider" and "quartered."
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.
And I must point out that the Constitutional Amendment process was NEVER supposed to have been used to NULLIFY a basic, fundamental premise of the Constitution--for instance, the prohibition on Income Tax.
If that were true, there would be a provision in the constitution stating so. Since the Constitution itself can be re-written en total via convention, your contention does not make much sense.
And I must point out that the Constitutional Amendment process was NEVER supposed to have been used to NULLIFY a basic, fundamental premise of the Constitution--for instance, the prohibition on Income Tax.
Yet somehow it never occurred to them to say that?
People claim all sorts of silly things. Let me know when someone wins such a claim. BTW the amendment say "solider" and "quartered."
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.
So its ok what the cops did then, because they're above the law?
So its ok what the cops did then, because they're above the law?
I think the police may well have exceeded their authority. I don't see it as a violation of the 3rd Amendment's intent, which was about forced quartering of military personnel. The police are not soldiers and they weren't quartered at the house. They may have illegally seized the property, so perhaps a 4th Amendment issue.
My contention that there are useless section of the Constitution seems to survive intact.
I think the police may well have exceeded their authority. I don't see it as a violation of the 3rd Amendment's intent, which was about forced quartering of military personnel. The police are not soldiers and they weren't quartered at the house. They may have illegally seized the property, so perhaps a 4th Amendment issue.
My contention that there are useless section of the Constitution seems to survive intact.
The cops are militarized, so if they want to act like soldiers, then they can be sued for violating the 3rd amendment.
The cops are militarized, so if they want to act like soldiers, then they can be sued for violating the 3rd amendment.
LOL, good luck with that argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
