site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   2327 thread views

Friday Fun Thread for July 10, 2026

Be advised: this thread is not for serious in-depth discussion of weighty topics (we have a link for that), this thread is not for anything Culture War related. This thread is for Fun. You got jokes? Share 'em. You got silly questions? Ask 'em.

1
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

To my knowledge there has never been a Supreme Court decision where the 3rd amendment was the primary basis. If you were a writer on The West Wing, how would you work an interesting 3rd amendment Supreme Court case into an episode?

DC Mayor Muriel Bowser was blocking National Guard from staying at DC hotels in 2020 and was arguing that the Third Amendment prevented the feds from overriding. It never went to trial. You could run with that idea pretty easily.

There was speculation that the 3rd amendment would come into play if Trump had sent the national guard into Minneapolis.

Honestly, increased state capacity has essentially rendered the harm the Third Amendment is intended to protect against obsolete. The government simply has no need to outsource the room and board of its soldiers to unwilling random civilians. Maintaining a large standing army is no longer the type of expense that can bankrupt a modern country, and ensuring soldiers are adequately fed is not a substantial drain on resources. Policing and adjudicating the conflicts quartering of soldiers would inevitably cause would almost certainly swamp any potential savings. Especially when the army can just commandeer a public building or block rent a few hotels, or literally just build a new base to their exact specifications anywhere on the millions of acres of federal land.

The most plausible modern application if the Third Amendment I can think of would be in a context like last year's emergency national guard deployments, where a large body of soldiers are suddenly brought into a locality to assist with riot suppression and there are no adequate facilities available to house them all. But again, it's a lot easier/cost effective to just rent out local hotels and set up cots in random federal buildings or even an empty field somewhere than billeting them in private homes. Even if it was cost-effective, the army probably doesn't want its occupying force distributed randomly throughout the (presumably hostile) civilian population, where it's difficult to quickly mobilize and individual soldiers are exposed to retaliation. It wants them in a nice and secure compound from which they can project power.

When people ask me what kind of law I practice and I don't want to tell them I just say I mostly do Third Amendment stuff. Then they proceeded to tell me about whatever child custody or bogus medmal issue their brother in law is dealing with despite my repeated assertions that I know nothing about either of those things.

Has nobody ever called you on that?

Not once.

It almost happened during COVID. The Biden admin had an eviction moratorium and this also applied to military personnel.

I saw claims from the other side about national guard housing violating the third, but I assume that it was requiring that something be taken out of context or squinted at.

I'd probably start by using Mitchell v. City of Henderson as a template. Start with a heavily armed, hierarchically structured federal agency with an unambiguous power to kill. Have them take over a home for a surveillance operation. Argue that it's not a 3rd amendment violation because of semantic games about what a soldier is.

Boom. Instant drama. Maybe shoot a dog for added pathos.

Would shooting the dog add pathos, or would it just make the story more realistic? I suppose it would depend on how it's written lol.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats