1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. MISC.LEGAL.MODERATED

  • the chimerical third

    From RichD@21:1/5 to All on Sun Feb 20 18:22:12 2022
    Has the third amendment to the Bill of Rights ever
    been referenced in a court opinion?

    --
    Rich

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Mon Feb 21 13:07:01 2022
    According to RichD <[email protected]>:
    Has the third amendment to the Bill of Rights ever
    been referenced in a court opinion?

    Yes, see Engblom vs. Carey, 2nd circuit in 1982. It was a very odd
    case in which prison guards went on strike at a rural prison where
    the state provided housing for the guards. During the strike, the
    state sent in the National Guard to run the prison, the guard members
    stayed in the employee housing, and the striking employees accused the
    state of quartering troops. The second circuit said, yes, that was
    quartering, thereby incorporating the third amendment against the
    states, but due to qualified immunity it was OK that time.

    The amendment has a considerably broader penumbra, implying a
    consitutional right to privacy. See Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965
    decision that said the state could not forbid doctors from prescribing contraceptives to married people.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, [email protected], Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Rick C@21:1/5 to John Levine on Mon Feb 21 20:40:51 2022
    On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 4:07:04 PM UTC-5, John Levine wrote:
    According to RichD <[email protected]>:
    Has the third amendment to the Bill of Rights ever
    been referenced in a court opinion?
    Yes, see Engblom vs. Carey, 2nd circuit in 1982. It was a very odd
    case in which prison guards went on strike at a rural prison where
    the state provided housing for the guards. During the strike, the
    state sent in the National Guard to run the prison, the guard members
    stayed in the employee housing, and the striking employees accused the
    state of quartering troops. The second circuit said, yes, that was quartering, thereby incorporating the third amendment against the
    states, but due to qualified immunity it was OK that time.

    What numbskull judge would hand down that decision. It is defective on two counts. First, it's a wrong interpretation of the third amendment.

    "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."

    "Without consent of the owner". Would not the owner be consenting in this situation??? I assume the striking employees were booted out of the homes since that was part of payment for the job which they were not doing.

    The other part that was defective was, applying "qualified immunity". The rule is in the Constitution! If the ruling is the action was in violation of the Constitution, how could there be any exception?


    The amendment has a considerably broader penumbra, implying a
    consitutional right to privacy. See Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965 decision that said the state could not forbid doctors from prescribing contraceptives to married people.

    I think that is a bit of a reach. The third amendment was only referenced in a very tangential manner as part of a group of amendments that implied a right to privacy. There is nothing specific about this amendment regarding privacy or especially
    contraception.

    I watch a show set in Canada in the 1880s and I was surprised to find subject matter regarding the prohibition of teaching about contraception. Apparently that was considered vulgar and more likely offensive to religious people who felt their religious
    rules should be codified as law.

    I've seen over 50 years of public evolution and how attitudes have changed. Some things that were commonly done when I was a kid would get you jail time now. I often wonder how we will be judged in 100 years.

    --

    Rick C.

    - Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
    - Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Barry Gold@21:1/5 to Rick C on Wed Feb 23 14:52:56 2022
    On 2/21/2022 8:40 PM, Rick C wrote:
    The amendment has a considerably broader penumbra, implying a
    consitutional right to privacy. See Griswold vs. Connecticut, the 1965
    decision that said the state could not forbid doctors from prescribing
    contraceptives to married people.
    I think that is a bit of a reach. The third amendment was only referenced in a very tangential manner as part of a group of amendments that implied a right to privacy. There is nothing specific about this amendment regarding privacy or especially
    contraception

    I agree. I do not recall any reference to the 3rd amendment in the
    court's opinion on Roe v. Wade. Instead, it refers to the "privileges
    and immunities" clause of the 14th amendment.

    --
    I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)