The 3rd (Third) Amendment might see Case Law in the near future.

[The2ndAmendment]

One interpretation of the THird Amendment:

The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.

Drones may soon be considered agents of the state. Also, the presence of cyber police monitoring your computer may also be considered, as they may be able to view inside your home by hacking a webcam. The issue is whether or not they are considered "soldiers" and if the state of "tenancy" applies.

Only time can tell!

(To add personally, if the dollar crashes you'll be seeing A LOT of Third Amendment cases, when the police who are starving for food, help themselves to your food in the name of public security).

 

[Avatar4321]

That is the stupidest interpretation of the 3rd amendment I've ever heard.

Is it really that difficult to take the Constitution at face value for what it says? If you don't want drones involved in your life, pass a law or an amendment to prevent it.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That's not my interpretation, it was Justice William O. Douglas.

There's no "Right to privacy" in the Constitution, and people would have said you were "stupid" to interpret the third + fourth + fifth + eighth + ninth amendment to imply it.

If one can prove the courts that drones are the "agents of the state,' (which is not difficult to prove), then all they need to do is prove that they are being "quartered" in the air above the homes of citizens (THIS IS A VERY HARD CASE TO PROVE). The idea is that the citizens did not give their consent to have agents of the government hovering above their property for indefinite periods of time --- it is a collective interpretation of the Third Amendment. It also calls into question the possible redefinition of your "property" when it extends vertically (towards the sky).

In the case of the computers, even if an agent has a warrant allowing him to search your computer remotely, is it possible that his use of your computer resources (electricity, processing power, RAM usage) for an extended period of time (days), can be considered quartering? I think this case would be THROWN OUT. However, the first case, concerning drones, might actually be legitimate.