Constitution ? house vs appartment

This is a discussion on Constitution ? house vs appartment within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Hopefully someone will be able to set me straight on this. I feel like a dog chasing his tail here. THIRD AMENDMENT No Soldier shall, ...

Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Constitution ? house vs appartment

  1. #1
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,634

    Constitution ? house vs appartment

    Hopefully someone will be able to set me straight on this. I feel like a dog chasing his tail here.

    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.
    Their was one case of claim that this right was violated.

    Amendment 3 - Conditions for quarters for soldiers
    According to the GPO, this is one of the least cited parts of the Constitution in federal case law. The only one the GPO does cite is an interesting case that is actually fairly recent (Engblom v. Carey [2nd Circuit Court]).
    In 1982, a group of prison guards went on strike in New York. Some of these guards rented housing from the prison, in a building about a half mile from the prison. When the guards struck, the National Guard was activated by the Governor to take over for the guards. The quarters rented by the guards were used to house the soldiers. A pair of the prison guards sued the Governor and several other officials on the basis that the 3rd Amendment had been violated, and that they had been denied due process under the 14th Amendment. In state court, the claim was summarily dismissed.
    On appeal and reappeal, the Circuit Court upheld the lower court's ruling, and found that the 3rd Amendment had not been violated for several reasons; primarily, they found that the rented apartments were not required to be used (unlike the apartment of, say, a building super), and that in no other way did the guards "own" the property the soldiers were housed in (this being a traditional test of whether someone's rights of property are being violated). On the question of due process, the Court had other opinions that you can research if you are interested.
    Now if this statement is true?
    ; primarily, they found that the rented apartments were not required to be used (unlike the apartment of, say, a building super),
    In reguards to this statement
    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house
    Then would it not stand to reason, that the rights of a “rentor” are less than those of a home owner.
    Specificually where I am going with this is in reguards to
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    Both amendments to the constitution refer to “HOUSE”, does this mean the case of { Engblom v. Carey [2nd Circuit Court]} set a legal prescident of the government can do what ever it wants to in any ones appartment,
    House Troops,
    No warrant for searches and seizures,
    And who knows what else.

    Or am I missing something, is it common to not need a warrant to search appartments.
    This doesn’t affect me, but it is concerning, non the less.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,046
    Seems to me (IANAL)...that the case you cited, the apartments were "owned" by the prision (i.e. the state of NY), hence, no 3A violation.

    That's like me (as a military member)--getting kicked out of military housing due to a(n) (extreme) operational requirement and not having any recourse. My quarters are owned by the US Gov't...and I think this is the case you have.

    I wouldn't worry about living in an apartment...think about this, don't you think the actual property owner would be upset if the USG housed troops in his apt complex, but didn't pay any rent? You as a renter have rights (and responsibilities)--if you pay rent, you have authority to use the portion allotted to you as spelled out in the rental agreement.

    I think you are making this more than it actually is...

  4. #3
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,634
    Sigguy,

    I see what you are saying, and I thought about that, It may very well be that simple, but isn't their a prescident that if they were living in a dwelling and or paying rent they would have established residency, and their for would have specific rights to the property.

    If you want to kick your girl/boy friend out of your house, they have established residancy, and must be given notice, even if they never paid a dime in rent. They were allowed to live there, and have certain rights to the property.

    I'm no lawyer, and could be straying even further of the subject here.

    Please forgive me if I have.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  5. #4
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,046
    Remember--when it comes to Gov't property, they have the gold--they make the rules (generally). That's the down side to living on Gov't property. Although they (the guards) established a residency, they are still subject to gov't rules and the property remains under control of the gov't.

    I'm sure there are some nuances we are neglecting/missing, but generally, (if living in Gov't quarters) they can kick you out as needed.

    You BF/GF analogy is correct...but not applicable in the sense of Gov't owned property.

    Back to your original topic--I would not worry about living in an apartment and troops being quartered there against your will...

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array 4my sons's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Out side of Richmond, VA
    Posts
    1,634
    We'll I guess Uncle Sam isn't all that nice of an Uncle is he.
    "fundamental principle of American law that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen." [Warren v. District of Columbia,(D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)]
    If I have to explain it, you wouldn't understand

  7. #6
    VIP Member Array SIGguy229's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Kommie-fornia-stan
    Posts
    7,046
    Well...as far as I know, when it comes to base housing, they haven't kicked anyone out to quarter troops (more likely to put into a hotel, or bivouac). I have known folks who have been kicked out of military housing because they did not follow the rules (damages, noise, domestic calls, neglect).

    All in all--it is not that bad...there is a pretty fair review process for military housing...it's the really bad ones that get kicked out.

    Mike in VA

  8. #7
    VIP Member
    Array Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    The Old Dominion
    Posts
    5,050
    I'm thinking that it was done similar to a minister who lives in the parsonage. When no longer the minister of that church he is asked to vacate the parsonage. Some churches even charge rent of their ministers in the parsonage. The guards were not under contract or performing their duties, therefore the rental agreement was also broken. So the landlord was able to rent to whomever they wished. I'm sure the NG paid for the quarters. If they didn't someone did. It all comes from the tax payers anyway in this case.

    Also the courts may have ruled on the intent of the 3rd in that it was to prevent our government from forcing citizens to quarter troops, which meant they also fed them among other things. Since they had experience with this while under the crown.

    All hypothesis on my part as the information is lacking. We would really have to at a minimum read the opinions of both courts and the arguments presented to understand the rulings. Of course it was also used by the prison as leverage to get the guards back to work, but that isn't the legal question, which may have been very narrow indeed.
    Procrastinators are the leaders of tomorrow.

  9. #8
    Member Array echo5tango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NOLA
    Posts
    275
    as far as the one who is renting having less rights, i don't believe that is the case. if you rent, it would benefit you to research your right to peacable possession of property which is often a state and/or local statute. generally speaking, when you rent and pay your rent on time (in other words are a good, upstanding rentor), you are entitled to the same rights as if you "owned" that property. now of course there are exceptions that are probably spelled out in your rental agreement or lease (such as painting and knocking down walls, etc.).

    of course ... IANAL but i went through a similar situation in college.

  10. #9
    Senior Member Array Fragman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    568

    Or maybe

    The property rented by the guards would no doubt be a perk of their job and directly linked to their employment.

    It could be argued that once the guards abandoned their duties by striking, they were not entitled to receive compensation in the form of subsidized housing and therefore were no longer legitimate renters of the property. The property would revert to the landlord to do with as he sees fit.

  11. #10
    Senior Member Array Wayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    822
    I agree, the apartments were state owned (government) and not privately owned.

    The rent paid I bet was severly reduced and also made available only as a part of their continued employment. That if fired or made unemployed at any time would have to vacate the property without the mandatory notice to vacate or having to get an eviction notice.

    When they striked they were then temp. unemployed so they lost the renting benefit offered through their employment. Just like other benefits, when you go on strike all benefits as well as pay is suspended for the duration and only started back up again after the strike is over.

    The military dorms is a good example. I only got to live there because I was employed by the USAF. I did tech. pay rent because I wasn't getting my housing allowance.

    At any time that the USAF decided that my services were no longer needed, I would hold no chance of sueing or staying in the dorms for the normal 2 weeks to 1 month that is allowed on privately owned properties.

    Wayne

  12. #11
    Member Array tnoisaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    205
    I think what the intention of the framers of the Constitution was based on the Revolutionary War when soldiers forced people to house them (ie, took over their homes). I believe this amendment gave citizens the right to say no without recourse.
    Don't be a fool and die for your country. Let the other sonofabitch die for his.

    George S. Patton

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Constitution
    By Pro2A in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 29th, 2010, 07:45 PM
  2. Journal-Constitution
    By DaveH in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: April 12th, 2009, 12:14 PM
  3. Iowa National Guard to practice house to house gun searches!! (MERGED)
    By bps3040 in forum Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion
    Replies: 96
    Last Post: March 11th, 2009, 04:04 PM
  4. The Constitution - Just As Relevant As Ever
    By ronwill in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 19th, 2007, 05:35 PM

Search tags for this page

conditions for quarters for soldiers example

Click on a term to search for related topics.