Replies

I’m sorry you don’t agree with decision, but it’s a case of reading the whole decision, not just some headline writer’s version of it.

Last week we were all upset when SCOTUS did not rule that the ACA letter of the law was exact in dealing with state-established healthcare funds.

In this case, the judge ruled that the Constitution means what is says. Exactly: “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.”

#!: This was included in the Bill of Rights to ensure homeowners did not incur the COST of quartering soldiers. It was in response to the British Quartering Acts of 1765 which required homeowners to house, and pay for the cost of housing British soldiers. This law required the homeowner to provide, bed, food, washing, etc. AT THE HOMEOWNER’S COST. This Amendment was designed to address that cost issue , not the entry into a home.

#2: Cops were there for 7 to 9 hours. That is not quartering.

#3; Government has the right to abridge occupancy and ownership laws in emergencies. For example; they can prevent you from entry into your home if it is on fire, a hostage is being held there, or it can be reasonably be expected that your entry would expose you to harm, such as gunfire from a neighboring house.

#4; The law specifically applies to soldiers, and only soldiers, not cops. That’s the exact wording of the amendment.

On ANY of these grounds, this case must fail.

If we want exact wording of the Constitution to apply, and I do, then it must apply in all cases, not just the ones we like.

After reading about this incident for two days, I do not agree with your premise.

They ‘could’ have knocked on the man’s door and politely asked to watch the house next door from a bedroom window. Their show of force was wrong, and illegal.

You can post a tome but I will *not* change my mind at this point.