Has the 3rd amendment of the US constitution ever been violated?

StpLSD25

Well: 'losing troops and weaponry to Al Qaeda' isn't the same as funding Al Qaeda, as you suggested earlier. And how radical were these Muslims groups, with regards to US foreign policy at the time? 'Funding' groups that seemed to share your doctrine - then didn't, is part of trying to get the outcomes you desire. Atleast one Journalist thought OBL was on the road to peace, and he was making all the right noises to suggest that at the time. You can't always foresee a switch in mentality. And it is disingenuous to suggest the US willingly funded groups they knew would turn on them, and their only goal was to turn on the US and it's allies. It's easy to say I wouldn't do that, this or the other over 20 years after the fact.

'The Mujahideen turned into Al Qaeda'

Is just one e.g where you clearly have no idea what you are talking about or again are being disingenuous.

Blah, Blah, Blah *snooze*.

Ever articulate that point further, and not just move onto something else that was shiny?

Convenient that is isn't it.

Proof.

Proof.

Proof.

And not some random RT/Infowars link, either - thanks.

 

But it's their hard earned money you wouldn't be thinking of STEALING it from them would you?

 

it would be there money, if they earned it fairly.

Banks LIE and act like they have a lot more money than they actually do! This is why they make such profits. Not to mention the bailouts, and other secret bailouts that the federal reserve does without our knowledge.

I'm not talking about "the redistribution of wealth." I believe the Rockefellers and Rothechilds should be tried for high treason, and their possessions should become property of the state once convicted.

 

Define "fair".

Really, their property should become property of the state once convicted? Why wait until then seeing as you're so convinced of their guilt already?

 

Because I actually believe in fair trials and the rule of law (unlike our government; I know if Mr Obama thought they were an enemy, he'd sick a Drone on them.) But that's not the way Civil individuals who respect Due Process would recommend. Everyone has right to a fair trial, it's in the Bill of Rights.

 

Btw 'fairly' means

No *Special benefits from government.

Not allowed to manipulate money (as that would be counterfeiting for us 'little people.')

Fair is not having malinvestments and going bankrupt, and stealing that money from the taxpayer; or even printing out more dollars to make our old ones worth even less. It's all different means of theft from us, the people. And I believe that's reflected in the decline of our middle class.

 

Nevada Family Says Police Occupation of Homes Violated the Third Amendment

Nevada police are being sued after arresting an entire family for refusing to allow officers to use their homes as lookouts in a domestic violence investigation.

Anthony Mitchell and his parents, Michael and Linda Mitchell are suing police for violating their Third Amendment rights. The amendment reads, "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."

Police phoned Anthony Mitchell and told him they wanted to use his home while investigating a domestic violence complaint. He refused, and thought that was the end of the matter.

Officers then came to the house and smashed down the front door, according to his complaint. They aimed their guns at Mitchell and "shouted obscenities at him and ordered him to lie down on the floor. Fearing for his life, plaintiff Anthony Mitchell dropped his phone and prostrated himself onto the floor."

"Addressing plaintiff as 'asshole,'" the complaint reads, officers shouted conflicting orders and fired "pepperball" rounds at him which struck him at close range as he lay on the floor. They also fired at his dog, Mitchell alleges. He was charged with obstructing the police, a charge that was dropped after he and his father were held in custody for 9 hours.

The Mitchells also accuse the police of "assault and battery, conspiracy, defamation, abuse of process, malicious prosecution, negligence, and infliction of emotional distress," reports Reason.
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/6...or-violating-third-amendment-by-seizing-homes

http://reason.com/blog/2013/07/05/nevada-family-says-police-occupation-vio

 

I think the 3rd ammendment could be applied, maybe. Depends. Police are often used as a paramilitary force but the definitions of paramilitary aren't clear. So I think depending on the courts it may or may not be used. But honestly I think they have more than enough of a case without it. I couldn't believe what I was reading. The cops behind this should lose their jobs in the very least.

 

Here is another example of the 3rd amendment being violated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEfASwVOTwM"]Police violently assault man for refusing their 3rd Amendment violation - YouTube

 

No, it's the same incident that was already posted.

 

Do you know you totally ignored me (edit) on that other topic? Why don't you defend your love of government?


BTW- if that's what was posted- then the other story was a MN family who sued the police for violating their 3rd amendment while setting up drug steakouts.

 

I'd say that most recent example was a violation of the 3rd Amendment.

---
Anyway I'm confused...about the federal reserve = recession argument.


USA's history has PLENTY of examples of volatile BOOM and BUST Recessions...before The Fed ever even existed during a period where government was as hands off as I could think possible.

During the Great depression we were not using fiat Money.

So basic logic assumes that if we were to dissolve the Federal Reserve, the USA would still have serious recessions and depressions....middle class would still shrink.


^ because of that logic this whole anti-fed is Illuminati conspiracy theory is scare tactic sensationalism.

-----

Now that's not to say there aren't crooked politicians in league with making shady deals with lobbyists... from various corporate entities financial sector or otherwise.


But to demonize the whole system? Baby with the bathwater much?

Also what about newly Elected Senator former Harvard economics professor Elizabeth Warren who in various times has heavily criticized the cozy relations and weak regulations regarding financial lobbyists and government regulation officials.

The checks and balances are working, but justice is slow and sometimes the bad guys DO win.

Watch C-span a bit more STP, it's as close to the truth as you'll get if you'd rather not watch TV mainstream media.

 

Well respectively, I disagree. Although I have heard this argument before that the economy was "less stable;" I think the problem lies in the corruption of Banks, both pre and post Great Depression. Even before the Federal reserve was there to print paper money, Banks would lie and give out more "gold slips" than actual gold they owned.

It's the same today; banks only have about 1/3rd of the total cash they pretend to have. In other words, if everyone decided today they didn't trust the banks, the banks again would have to be bailed out just to return everyone's money.

Furthermore, the Federal Reserve Act wasn't passed by Congress- it was passed by some elitest on Jekyl island. And I believe that a private bank in charge of our nations finances is def a bad idea, on so many levels.

Not at all! Because it is most of the system! Even the Democratic and Republican parties are so fixed that they actually dismissed Ron Paul Delegates, just to stop them from voting. This is no freedom in the world the government wants to offer you. We're only losing freedoms. Although people maybe waking up on some issues, the people lose alot of civil liberties in the process, and I disagree with your premise that it's a hit and miss thing, I think it's just the Status Quo, and the way business is conducted in DC!

I do watch Cspan. I disagree that our checks and balances are working. I think the constitution is being trampled. No one's Civil Liberties should be jepordized; but sadly, that's not the case.


I believe, (and explain further in other posts) that the government is restricting our Constitutional Rights very rapidily with laws and treaties and such. Obama paid a Federal Judge off the make him declare the NDAA "Constitutional"

But where does that leave people like me who KNOW it isn't Constitutional?
I Need to just sit and listen to almighty Obama?