Hello comrades.
I'm a former USonian and I've been politically active most of my life. I thought that it might be fun to share some of the weird legal technicalities that I've learned over the years.

These may be useful, these may not be useful. The USonian legal system is very much a secular version of ancient clergies with its fancy language, recitations, robes, and holy texts for judging moral matters. But maybe some of you will find these quirks interesting!

1. Patents are not property

A mild one to start out. Patents are something called a government franchise. Altho they are traded as tho they were property, they have a quirk. The federal government of the US is the one issuing the franchise, and it can thus revoke it at any time without compensation. The government can actually revoke any property at any time (especially land) but it has to give compensation. But if the federal government wanted to make certain technical innovations (refridgerants with low warming potential, vaccines, medicines, etc.) it could do it literally at zero cost.

2. The Constitution does not want a permanent army.

Sometimes this is called a "standing" army. This one is also very fun for any technicality lovers. Article I of the US Constitution is about Congress and Section 8 of Article I is about its powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 12 says Congress has the power:
"To raise and support armies".
Compare this to Clause 13 which says it has the power:
"To provide and maintain a navy".
Raise and support vs provide and maintain.
So what? Maybe they just worded it differently. Well I'm being a bit of a trickster because the full text of Clause 12 says "To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years".
The Constitution did not want a permanent army. This is why, to this day, that military spending is done in the Discretionary Budget each year. It's not technically automatic, technically all the soldiers have to re-enlist, and so the army is in line with the Constitution. (See what I mean about the legal system being a secular clergy lol).

3. National Guards are not state militias.

The original meaning of the 2nd Ammendment is even weirder than the modern interpretation that private citizens are allowed to own guns. The original meaning is that private citizens can form their own paramilitaries. This is the right that is actually protected. Now that makes sense in a settler colony originally conceived as a confederation of separate rural settler colonies, but it remains there to this day.

This one is actually the most useful for us leftists because militias are not only legal, they are Constitutionally protected. Having independent militias of the proletariat being armed is protected in the US Constitution. This is a fact that basically no other leftist movement has had and could very easily be leveraged if any leftwing militia is legally challenged. The public legitimacy would be more easily justified and even non-leftist legal system members would defend it.

But that's not the only thing. Many people think that the National Guard are the State Militias that the 2nd Amendment talks about. They are in fact, not! Only 20 of the 50 states have these militias. They are often called "defense forces". Wikipedia has a list of them here if you want.

Another weird thing is that the President likely has the authority to call these state militias into service under their command. 10 U.S.C. 251, 252, and 253 state that pretty clearly.

So then, what the hell are the National Guard? The National Guard use the other technicality of that Clause 12 from Article I Section 8. It does not say "army" it says "armies". Not only does Congress raise the regular army, it raises armies. The National Guard is raised under Congress's power to "raise and support" armies. Source 1 and Source 2.
The states are just given special control over what are essential local units of a federal army.

And lastly, perhaps most bizarre of all, here is more proof that the National Guard are actually not members of a militia but actual soldiers in the army. This is the case of Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982).

Here's the backstory: Attica is a state prison in the state of New York. A prisoner uprising occured in 1971 against inhuman treatment of prisoners. Around half the 2200 prisoners took part in the uprising. The prison eventually took back control of the prisoners but were forced to begin implementing changes. Racial integration of staff, more humane treatment, etc. But the prison guards' union refused. So they went on strike. The governor of New York (Nelson Rockefeller. Yes, that Rockefeller family) activated the National Guard to run the prison during the strike (and also to scab but it was against racist cops so fuck both of 'em).

And this is where the court case happened. The 3rd Amendment prevents housing soldiers in homes during a time of peace. The prison guards took the state to court and won. The National Guard members were soldiers and members of the army and were housed in lodgings the prison had where some prison staff lived. This was deemed to be a home that the soldiers had been illegally quartered in a time of peace.

4. The reason party delegates don't have to vote in line with their citizens is the 1st Amendment.

I'm sure many of your know that voting for President in the US is not done directly. You vote for a candidate but that is merely an opinion poll. Each state is given a number of "electors" who are unelected people and usually party insiders. These electors are the ones who actually vote for the President and they do so "in their respective state capital on the first Tuesday after the second Wednesday of December".

Then the results of these meetings are brought to Congress on January 6th and tallied up and the new president is officially confirmed.

But the political parties themselves also have a similar system. This is what the national conventions are. And each state is given electors but they are often called "delegates". These delegates do not have to vote for who the state voted for and the reason is the 1st Amendment on freedom of speech and association.

So even tho states could pass laws requiring electors to vote in line with the state's population (or with the national vote), there is nothing they can do to prevent the delegates from voting however they want.

The End

I hope you all found those interesting! I might do another one of these if people found it fun. Feel free to share any other strange quirks you know of.