TIL “quartering troops” means giving them shelter, not cutting them into four pieces… makes much more sense now!
Let’s not be hasty here. We haven’t explored all the pros and cons of drawing and quartering the troops yet
Pro: don’t have to pay veteran benefits
Con: hard to get people to enlist
YEAH, YOU HEAR THAT MR. ARMY MAN? CAN’T STAY HERE! GO FIND A FUCKIN’ MANGER, BABY JESUS STYLE! IT’S MUH 3RD 'MENDMENT RIGHT! YEE HAW!
The final panels show Ron Paul’s blimp finally approaching Washington DC. The balloon spotted on their radar is presumably piloted by blogger Cory Doctorow, as revealed in the next installment, Secretary: Part 4.
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/496:_Secretary:_Part_3
Don’t tread on my Futon!
Funny thing, it’s worded that way because to the founding fathers an occupation force was the same thing as law enforcement.
The 3rd amendment is basically, “you cannot be forced to assist the cops” but in that way that gets really split from original intentions due to societal shifts.
I disagree with you. The 3rd was a response to the very real practice by the British army where they’d show up and tell the owner that they have to house soldiers in their home.
Having no formal military presence in America, the British passed various Quartering Acts requiring that citizens of the Colonies pay for the foreign British army’s upkeep while stationed in America. It was unpopular and seen as unnecessary and despite much protest by the colonies was forced through. It is tough to see a group showing up unannounced demanding your home and personal property while armed with weapons and a letter of marque as something other than pirates.
It is tough to see a group showing up unannounced demanding your home and personal property while armed with weapons and a letter of marque as something other than pirates.
You mean like police today?
That’s what I’m saying, this was an act of law enforcement in a day which predates the development of the modern civilian policing model used by modern cops.
Prior to their inception in the US, law enforcement was primarily carried out by an elected sheriff, but also by troops specifically dedicated to the task.
It became unironically true the second the police force was created. After the founding fathers. You won’t find them complaining about police explicitly because cops didn’t exist back then.
So, while we can say the founding fathers had no opinion of police, you can be damn sure they still understood the problems of unchecked authority and would’ve been adamantly against many of the protections police have today.
Add to it the lack of common space (as it was a frontier colony and we hadn’t invented malls yet) and you ended up quartering soldiers in any place that people could meet, preventing them from being able to assemble and talk shit on England.
Real talk: a militarized police force is what what the third amendment was trying to prevent.
People can get together and talk shit.
People can police themselves, and should.
Barring a war, the government can’t just come in and occupy common spaces and monitor people.
The government can’t just inspect people willy nilly either.
The government can’t just force you to confess stuff.
They didn’t just make this stuff up, they were trying to prevent real problems that had occurred that people could remember and led to a revolution. Something said revolutionaries were not interested in repeating a few years later.
