Where Does Roberts Stand on the Third Amendment?
I thought this was pretty funny, including a fictional quote from our fearless leader.
pageok
pageok
pageok |
Where Does Roberts Stand on the Third Amendment?
I thought this was pretty funny, including a fictional quote from our fearless leader. |
pageok |
I am not a constutional scholar. But, I do believe the third amendment is not as irrelevent as the cited parody would suggest.
Laws only apply to lawsuits.
because it means right to privacy? Becuase it justifies abortion?
It doesn't. It says we can't forcefully house troops on private property. That's it.
We should amend the constitution to provide a right to privacy; this was a highly narrow amendment because they meant only that specific prohibition.
Easily the amendment could have said the goverment can't impose on privacy in general, but they didn't. Instead of wierd interpretations, we should fix the problem.
twwren made the case up-thread; it's the first post there.
(1) House would not be construed to include a football practice field unless someone were seriously interested in mental gymnastics for its own sake.
It extnds to one's primary place of abode, but you probably don't have a sufficient interest in a place where you have only a license to be (like the Superdome) as opposed to a place where you have a right to be (fee simple owner, life tenant, surface owner, tenant, etc.) I'm not sure whether house ought to be construed to mean "dwelling house" but that seems reasonable;
(2) There is an operational declaration of war and there is no requirement that the location of troops be directly related to the war in the amendment; and
(3) quartered would likely be construed to mean "living there," thus an operations center would not be "quartering" of troops.
Has the Third Amendment ever come up in jurisprudence anywhere?
On remand it was determined that the defendants were immune to suit on the grounds of qualified immunity and the Second Circuit affrimed that holding.
Amendment in the United States. But, as opera fans know, the "quartering" of an alleged military officer in the private house where a winsome young woman lived is a key event in "The Barber of Seville." But it was in Spain, not here. The alleged military officer (the hero of the opera) with the connivance of the Barber managed to marry the young woman, so at least on one occasion what would have been a violation of the 3rd Amendment (if it occurred in the U.S.) wasn't such a terrible thing!
Oh, when the Saints, come matching in . . .
This seems like an exceptionally narrow reading of the Amendment. I find it hard to believe that (this is taken to the extreme, but serves to illustrate the weakness in this reading) the Court would allow the government to declare war on some rinky-dink little country without necessarily even prosecuting it, and that the declaration of war itself would thus serve to prevent the operation of the amendment. That would appear to be the very same kind of abuse that the amendment was intended to prevent.
Of course, even in wartime, the quartering has to be "in a manner prescribed by law"... that's another issue for discussion. There presumably has to be some sort of statutory provision that would authorize such an occupation.
That said, I do agree with your other two points.
I think it's an overbroad interpretation to say that the 3rd amendment would allow forced quartering during wartime if the war is taking place somewhere far off.
But it didn't, and now they're all achatter - particularly those who have imbibed a little too much DemUn a little too often - about conspiracy theories in which Bush declares martial law, or refuses to leave office. Don't hold your breath. I love my liberal friends, but sometimes the plain fact is they need to get a grip. :p
I know y'all are impressionable, and I know there's that movie coming out which says otherwise, but let me say this in the calming, reassuring tone of that drill sgt. you're expecting...THE SKY IS NOT FALLING.
(Oh and that link was funny, although I'm a bit troubled that "originalist" has evidently become the term of abuse of the month. And thus, another term with an actual meaning is stripped of all meaning to become a public insult/compliment by people who wouldn't know the difference between original intent and original meaning if it bit them in the ass).
By by reading of the historical record surrounding the enactment of the Third, that's not far off. See Tom W. Bell, "The Third Amendment: Forgotten But Not Gone," 2 Wm. &Mary Bill of Rights J. 117 (1993), available at http://www.tomwbell.com/writings/3rd.html. Amend III almost certainly provides for treating quartering during times of civil unrest, etc., like quartering during times of war.