founding fathers: "And you thought it wasn't gonna come up."
Is the third amendment really applicable in the case of hotels? I thought that hotels are a business in which they pay to stay there. It’s not like they are barging in there unannounced and taking refuge without any consent.
@YouThisReadWrong, I feel like as long as they pay they could stay, unless the hotel has a right to refuse service to anyone, but the governor isn’t the hotel owner, intriguing
@YouThisReadWrong, the thing is if they aren’t paying the government is, it’s also a right to refuse service
If the place was paid because it is a business then nothing has been done wrong and it's just politicians waving their dicks around
@DrSin, the hotels are not refusing the service . The mayor of the town is
@thejamesshow00, he asked about the hotels, that’s why I posted such response, but not commenting on the photo
@YouThisReadWrong, yes, but the governor forcing the hotels to evict them ( which is what it sounds like from the tweet) i dont know where that lands.
@YouThisReadWrong, you’re correct, it’s legal to pay a hotel to house troops
@YouThisReadWrong, the only way I see the third amendment being applied here, would be more towards removing them from occupying towns. They may not be staying in your home, but they are staying right next to you in large numbers.
@DrSin, so the hotel is owned by the DC mayor?
@lostnomad, the third amendment prevents the forced housing of troops in private residences. Something that was regular practice for the british back in the day.
@YouThisReadWrong, the military pays for soldiers to stay in hotels all the time while they’re traveling or on temporary duty assignments away from home. The hotels have the right to refuse to room anyone including soldiers, but why would they when the government’s paying full price for the room? Not sure what gives this mayor the right to tell hotels who the can and can’t serve, but it ain’t the 3A.
@DrSin, but it’s not the hotel owner that’s saying no. If it was you’d have a point but it’s not
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.
@ThePandaPool , 1: a hotel isn’t a house. 2 the government pays for the hotel usage. 3 the amendment was about soldiers showing up to farms and taking it over for personal gains, like in other countries they’ll take the farm and land when crops are short and eat all the food and leave the farmer with literally nothing after all his year long preparations.
@Rileyh212, not disagreeing with you, but it all comes down to how people feel like interpreting it. Look at what people think "shall not be infringed " means.
@ThePandaPool , If the hotel owner consented to them staying (which I believe he/she did in this instance), it in no way violates the third amendment.
@Rileyh212, and freedom of speech wasnt intended for twitter yet it should stand.
@CocoasBro, not for Twitter per se, but for public forum (which Twitter is) was certainly what the founders had in mind for the 1A
@Kierkegaard, see my previous comment.
@ThePandaPool , if the government rented the rooms at the going rate, don’t see a problem here
@Hot Coffee, again... see my second comment.
@CocoasBro, twitter is world wide, amendments are only in the US. 🤷♂️
@ThePandaPool , still not certain how you could interpret a business transaction as infringement. I mean if you want to get that lax in you interpretation, then I demand all laws related to gun ownership be struck from the books retroactive.
@ThePandaPool , been away for a few days and haven’t seen how this blew up. So hotels aren’t homes and they have been around well before America was around. (Taverns and inn’s). They have no right to deny business to customers because of the federal civil rights act (irony) and the Americans with disabilities act. They only did it to save face with the general public because money is the only thing that can make people fight for anything. They would have lost more money publicly housing government employees who are doing what they’re told or be court marshaled and face prison time than if they kicked them out and be praised as hero’s.
@ChineseTakeout, but Twitter is a US firm shouldn't they follow US law especially to US citizens.
@coffeeteer, the first ammendment is not applicable to Twitter, it's a private company
@ThePandaPool , yeah really old and like a lot of other American laws it needs to be updated, it’s main use is for during a war, Soldiers would have shelter, cuz they need it to survive because the Military is important I guess
@coffeeteer, you are right but a manager of Twitter somewhere said “nope, you can’t say that!” and proceeds to delete a post, but we wouldn’t know and trying to prove that they violate the constitution is hard when things go unnoticed and behind closed doors
@Helecon, uhhh.... the law is AGAINST the soldiers, not for them.
Believe me, I really don’t like Mike Lee, but the third amendment does not actually apply to hotels.
@NotFlat, I’m gonna have to disagree with you. If the National Guard show up unannounced and forcibly stay yeah sure but I imagine they are paying to be there probably not personally but I imagine the government is. Basically depending on the context it can be a violation of the 3rd but in this instance it’s most likely not. Also a mayor cannot choose who a business can and cannot do business with.
@DRAGONSHEART2018, the “if” and “forcibly” part are important. They did not force themselves, and they are paying. Well, the hotel is being paid for the rooms anyway.
The 3rd amendment does not apply here.
3rd amendment is to keep soldiers from taking peoples homes. They are paying so the mayor
should have no say.
Looked this up as a fyi for anybody still looking up comments, nobody is evicting the national guard this is a bait tweet, there were two seperate things going on 1)Bowser requested the president to withdraw the national guard 2) guard members had to change hotels for two reasons: disagreements of who pays(statement saying that "citizens cannot pay") and hotels had preexisting contracts including being reserved for Covid19 first responders. Also just saying again for emphasis the national guard was not kicked out, they had to change hotels on short notice
3rd amendment only applies to private property such as your home, not a commercial business.
@ChineseTakeout, technically businesses are private property if they own/rent the land they are on and the building they are in. It's the reason why businesses can kick you out or ban you from their store. If it's paid for by the city/state/U.S, then it is most likely public property where people are generally free to enter (with obvious exceptions such as military bases.)
As a non American can someone tell me what the hell this is all about?
kick me out and ill kick your teeth in