Amendment III ?


PDA






Whirlwind06
June 18, 2006, 11:11 PM
Amendment III

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.

I was reading our US bill of rights today and I was wondering if this amendment is of any value in today's world. I guess during world war II it might have been used. I guess I'm asking for opinions on what right this establishes for Americans in 2006?

If you enjoyed reading about "Amendment III ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
VARifleman
June 18, 2006, 11:28 PM
That's the only one that's been left alone by the government, all the other's have been encroached or flat out ignored.

slzy
June 18, 2006, 11:44 PM
that will be only till the UN has juristiction or until the mexican gov't. wants to protect workers safety.

geekWithA.45
June 18, 2006, 11:46 PM
I think it's relevant in a tangential way, in that it speaks to the "fundamental right to be left alone".

Back in those days, soldiers weren't dedicated soley to warfighting as the modern soldier is. They were the general purpose "agents of the state".

The serve numerous purposes, including police and information gathering functions.

Accordingly, having an agent of the state resident in your home made all of your business subject to the scrutiny of the crown, and made plotting revolution....exciting.

I would argue that in that light, the 3rd amendment would speak to other sorts of agents of the state, be it policeman, black box, or mandatory code hidden deep in your OS.

mljdeckard
June 19, 2006, 12:27 AM
I have argued to anti-gunners in less civilized forums, that the process of banning guns would compromise the entire Bill of Rights, including the Third Amendment.

It's a bit of a stretch, but look at it this way. To effectively ban and confiscate all guns in America, and not allow people to hide and move them, would require many times more manpower than the government currently has. They would have to conscript some kind of reserve. The process of ensuring people don't move their guns AFTER they have already been searched, and the soldiers move on, requires that there be eyes everywhere, both in secret and in public. How would this be possible without prolonged status of troops within private homes?

Of course the rest of the Bill of Rights would go away, because of any and all other evidence uncovered in the process of the intrusion.

Vex
June 19, 2006, 12:36 AM
The 3rd was used to protect workers during a strike of correctional officers in the late 70's. Do a google search for Engblom v. Carey and I'm sure you'll come up with something (I know because I just did).

Mannlicher
June 19, 2006, 08:36 AM
geekWithA.45I think it's relevant in a tangential way, in that it speaks to the "fundamental right to be left alone".

...and this is part of the problem now. There was a very definite reason this was put into the Constitution. It delt with the problem of American Citizens forced to provide food and lodging for British Troops.
There is no 'fundamental right to be left alone' in the Constitution. This interpretation is just that, a modern extrapolation, with no basis in original intent. Depending on who is doing the interpretation, any part of the Constitution can mean just about anything.

hillbilly
June 19, 2006, 08:51 AM
The reason the Third Amendment doesn't seem very relevant today is precisely because no soldiers are being forcibly quartered in any private homes.

It's really easy to keep an eye on the populace when lots and lots of citizens have uninvited soldiers living in the house with them on orders from the government.

hillbilly

The Real Hawkeye
June 19, 2006, 08:53 AM
I was reading our US bill of rights today and I was wondering if this amendment is of any value in todays world. I guess during world war II it might have been used. I guess I'm asking for opinons on what right this establishes for americans in 2006?One of our more thoughtful members put forth an excellent analysis of this question a few months ago. Don't remember his name, but he suggested, and I agree, that they would not have committed an article of the Bill of Rights to something like this unless it was actually very important to our liberties. At first glance it doesn't seem to be, but when considered with historical perspective, it makes perfect sense. Back in pre-Revolutionary times, the British used this as a method of spying on the colonists. Put a soldier in the home of every suspected Patriot, i.e., non-loyalist, to keep his eyes and ears open and report on what he sees and hears. Essentially, it was an anti government surveillance of private citizens amendment. If they had electronic surveillance back then, it would have been referenced here as well.

Maybe the member I am referring to will respond and explain his analysis better. That's how I remember it, though, and I think it makes sense.

orangelo
June 19, 2006, 08:54 AM
During Katrina they did house military troops in hotels and other private buildings for a while. Dunno whether they did it with the landowner's permission or simply commandeered what they wanted.

Whirlwind06
June 19, 2006, 09:16 AM
The 3rd was used to protect workers during a strike of correctional officers in the late 70's. Do a google search for Engblom v. Carey and I'm sure you'll come up with something (I know because I just did).

Me too, before I posted my question. Considering that was the only case of note out there I wanted to get some other opinions.

Henry Bowman
June 19, 2006, 09:37 AM
During Katrina they did house military troops in hotels and other private buildings for a while. Dunno whether they did it with the landowner's permission or simply commandeered what they wanted.This was my recollection as well.

armedandsafe
June 19, 2006, 12:34 PM
We "quartered" several Army officers in our home during WWII. This was with our consent and not forced on us in any way, as the town was very tiny and the special training camp set up there had training officers coming and going on short notice. There was also the fact that the town and every building in it was owned by the Federal Government. :D I hesitate to use the tem "arm twisting."

Pops

mbt2001
June 19, 2006, 12:36 PM
I have recently thought that the 3rd amendment may be our best chance of getting rid of the UN. I have not yet fully rationalized it, but frankly think that if the troops couldn't be housed without the consent of folks, then how can the UN continue to have standing in New York without the consent of the folks...

Over simplified, but perhaps you will see me idea.

leadcounsel
June 19, 2006, 12:39 PM
It was important in times when ground fighting was done on home soil and wars were fought in territories that are now the states of Virginia, Pennsylvania, DC, New York, Baltimore, etc...

It would come into light again in the future if/when there is a collapse and troops may be ordered (illegally) to deploy to fight against massive uprisings.

Since military bases could be targeted, it might be effective to house troops in citizens' homes.

Science fiction? Possibly.

1911Tuner
June 19, 2006, 01:27 PM
Can't speak for anybody else, but if a few of America's finest need a place to sleep, they can knock on my door any time.

Ira Aten
June 19, 2006, 03:57 PM
The IIIrd Amendment is supposed to guarantee that..."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."

It means that the military is not supposed to enter your home under any circumstances without your permission, either to be quarterd there, or in any manner invade your privacy or property rights in a time of peace, and unless the Legislature passes a law stating under what circumstances it can be done in times of war, then they cannot do it during war without your permission either.

It is a hell of a good idea, to not allow the military the power to house themselves in your home, eat all your grub, or take hold of your possessions for miltary usage without your consent.

It has all types of merit in todays world, just as much as it did back then. Nobody can say when some Government Official might decide to arbitrarily begin dictating rights as they see fit. (i.e., Ray Nagin, New Orleans Police Chief/Gun Confiscation proclamations, etc.)

ctdonath
June 19, 2006, 09:06 PM
if a few of America's finest need a place to sleep, they can knock on my door any time.As goes with most of us.

The issue is when our "finest" don't knock, and what constitutes "knocking" etc.

If you enjoyed reading about "Amendment III ?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!