Note: Originally published on April 28th, 2009 at Brushfire Sparks
“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.”
Now we venture a bit outside the common territory of the Bill of Rights and into areas not so familiar, but just as important, as those protected in amendments one and two. The main reason we don’t hear a lot about the third is that it is not as frequently under attack, or at least direct attack, as the first and second. Out of sight, out of mind.
The history of the third goes back to the Revolutionary War, as a direct response to the Quartering Act established by the British during colonial times. The act allowed British soldiers to take up residence in the homes of colonists, with no compensation to the home owner, it times of peace or war. The third amendment is among the least cited in the US Constitution, largely due to the declining number of military operations on US soil since the Civil War.
The third amendment is cited most frequently in “right to privacy” cases. There have been other cases, some not so substantial, that have cited the third as part of the case. The issue, or perhaps benefit, is the lack of Supreme Court precedent regarding this amendment. With no significant history of litigation surrounding the amendment, there is little for the with which the judicial branch can work.
There is reason to be concerned regarding this particular amendment. First, as part of the Bill of Rights, it stands apart from other parts of our founding documents as a portion of the rights protected for the people. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. If this particular amendment were to come under attack, it would further weaken the foundations of this nation.
Second, the third amendment clearly indicates a difference in times of peace and war, helping to define these statuses for other items in the Constitution. This can be critical in certain types of cases regarding the actions of the Congress or the rights of the citizenry.
Third, assuming this is only about armies occupying homes is simplifying the matter to a dangerous extreme. This amendment clearly defines the sanctity of private property, protecting the rights of property ownership for the citizens of this nation. Private property is the core of a capitalist economy, which in turn is the engine of our freedom. Eroding our private property rights is a deterioration of capitalism and an attack on freedom. While this can be achieved through other means (and has been), the third may become an “easy target” for those Socialists who wish to chip away at the free market that drives our nation’s economy.
Finally, the third should be a focus because it further establishes a solid boundary which the government should not cross. The Bill of Rights is a set of fence posts that are designed to corral the powers of the federal government, protecting the rights of the people. Allowing a single post to be rotted, or broken, opens a gap in that fence that will allow government to run wild. If we are to remain a nation of, by, and for the people, we can not allow government to take any further steps outside their fence. To do so is to surrender our liberty in exchange for false hope. That is the recipe for disaster for this nation. We have seen the effects of these actions against the first and second amendments. The rot is spreading through our liberties, and it must be stopped.
Contact Ramarious Brushfire Home
Copyright 2009. The published content is the sole property of the author. Any copy, use, or redistribution of any portion of the material without the written consent of the owner is a violation of international copyright laws.