portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article commentary portland metro

a21 bush protests

What Happened to the 3rd Amendment?!?

Cops take over private property to protect the pResident. Is this on the legal up and up?
Marching today from Columbia Park in North Portland to the University of Portland, there were A LOT of police officers, vehicles, bicycles, horses, atvs, you name it. Most of these vehicles and many of these people had taken over driveways and lawn space of private property owners along our parade route. I know that for most of the country there are only four Amendments to our Constitution that people talk about: the first, second, fourth and fifth (If you don't know what these are, please educate yourself!). My question is, what about the thrid amendment? You know, the no quartering of goverment troops in private homes? I saw police riding their bicycles through people's yards to get around the crowd, police eating their lunch in driveways, etc. Is this really legal? Is this right?

I know that cops feel that they can do anything that they want to do - they are, after all, above the law - but shouldn't they respect the property that they are supposedly there to protect? Could some legal eagle out there tell me if I have a point, and should we challenge the city of Portland and its nazi-cop regieme for violating yet another one of our Constitutionally protected guarantees?

I Noticed It Too 21.Aug.2003 19:02

Rian Snider RianSnider@yahoo.com

I was thinking the exact same thing... we all know about the 1st but what about the 3rd??!

Clarification 21.Aug.2003 19:30

w0bbly

Just to make it clear:

Amendment III

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.

Check out the rest of our quickly disentigrating Constitution at:

 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.overview.html

What they do is 21.Aug.2003 19:58

jrash jrashrash@hotmail.com

What they do is, they condemn the property for being unstable or infested or such, paving the way, literally, for new public thoroughfares such as roads, highways, streets, freeways, and bypasses. It is called the theory of eminent domain.

What jrash is referring to ... 22.Aug.2003 02:29

Dance

is addressed in the last phrase of the 5th Amendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." It is abused, for example in Detroit, Michigan, most or all of the homes in a working class neighborhood called Poletown was taken by the government by eminent domain. The government paid what it deemed "fair market value". The homeowners not only lost their homes, but the entire community was destroyed, obliterated. The land was sold to General Motors to build a manufacturing plant, which was ostensibly for the public good because it was "creating jobs".

As for the 3rd Amendment, I wondered about that today, too. But I'm not aware of any cops occupying any buildings - just yards and driveways. Would that be considered "in a house"? And I don't know if they "asked" for permission of any owners.

But there were definitely complaints of residents that they were told and/or intimidated to stay in their houses, essentially under house arrest. That would be false arrest - a violation of the 5th Amendment: "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law".

it's called the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act 22.Aug.2003 13:01

hawkeye pharaoh

kiss your constitution goodbye.

You have too much time on your hands 25.Sep.2003 17:48

nka

The last time I checked the amendment said "shall not quarter soliders". The police are not part of the military only structured like the military as a form of discipline. Quartering means soliders living inside a dwelling. The comment of the police parked on lawns and driveways is not inside a dwelling. They are on the curtilage of the property and are not staying inside. Did you check with the homeowners of the propertys to see if the police had permission to be there, I did not think so. AS of today there have been no Supreme Court challenges to this amendment. I hope your parents are getting there moneys worth out of your college education.

Help 22.Jan.2004 19:56

bong@aol.com

Does anyone know where to find this amendment in articles?

wow 29.Jan.2004 18:12

Jamal Jackson freaksh0w7@aol.com

The quartering act refers to federal soldiers staying in private residence with out permission of the owner, police officers are technically civilians even when on duty and thus, like any citizen they are allowed on private property (i.e. someone's lawn) unless they are specifically forbade by the owner. Bottom line...as long as the officers respected the requests of homeowners there was no violation of the third amendment in this situation. The third amendment gives property owners the right to refuse soldier quartering, it does not forbade public saftey officers from setting foot on private property unless specifically requested by the property owner.

nka, you don't have ENOUGH time on your hands. 28.Dec.2004 13:08

Kendall Steinle

You have typed: I hope your parents are getting there moneys worth out of your college education.

It is a bit ironic, don't you think?

I know you felt very educated for typing such a line, but you must consider that they teach the proper use of 'there' and 'their' in elementary school. However, I'm sure you completely skipped elementary school and headed straight for college, eh? Well, in language you may understand: Your a genius.

what 11.Jan.2005 18:24

amanda jennings

you arent housing a soldier, you have the WRONG amendment, the third amendment was based on the quatering act of britian

stupid-o burrit-o 14.Dec.2005 13:29

jos

dude the condtiution is not real anymore. we dont use it, the people who signed it are dead (they have been for a very long time) andthis country isa shithole with bush in charge.

you got that right 12.Apr.2006 18:18

gaby

bush makes this country worse than it is

liar 16.Nov.2006 14:46

edp

to the 2 people above me ummmm we do use the constitution duh and the constitution is real, and wut would of happend if Kerry was president it would be way worse!!!!!!!!

liar 16.Nov.2006 15:10

edp

to the 2 people above me ummmm we do use the constitution duh and the constitution is real, and wut would of happend if Kerry was president it would be way worse!!!!!!!!

Thanks 30.Nov.2006 09:47

Steph-e --> barbiekiller357@yahoo.com

thanks to all the people who wrote
i found this place by mistake but you helped me with my essay on the 3rd amend.
i needed to know what other people thought about it
so thanks