Uncategorized

Kieran Constitution Project

Video

Written Component

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the fundamental right to free speech: a key to American democracy. The First Amendment was primarily created to protect American citizens from a totalitarian government. As disagreements heightened between Great Britain and the colonies, Jefferson became one of the key American revolutionaries fighting for the representation of those being silenced in governmental decisions. Even before the formation of the United States Constitution, Jefferson was no stranger to directly advocating for free speech.. Free speech was a huge priority to Jefferson as he began to design the framework for the United States, thus, leading to the First Amendment. 

However, in a modern democracy, there are incidents where the First Amendment can come into question. The events of January 6th, 2021, at the United States Capitol have ignited a heated debate about whether former President Donald Trump can be held accountable for his role in inciting the storm on Capitol Hall. Essentially, the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause protects people’s rights to express their opinions, ideas, and beliefs without fear of government censorship. It covers various forms of expression, such as speech, press, assembly, and petition. This timeless right ensures that citizens can engage in public discourse, challenge authority, and freely express differing opinions. However, there are instances where the first amendment’s protection can be taken away. For example, there’s an Incitement exception which states  that if speech is used to incite violence it would no longer be protected by the first amendment. This clause plays heavily into the ongoing debate of the accountability of Donald Trump. His actions leading up to the January 6th incident have been a subject of intense debate. There are two main perspectives each utilizing the first amendment to aid their argument, here are the two sides:              

Incitement and Responsibility:

One viewpoint states that Trump’s accusation of election fraud, his  “Stop the Steal” rally before the storming of capital hall, and his refusal to accept the election results created the atmosphere that led to five people being killed during the violence and many more being injured. People that believe Trump should be held accountable argue that his words and actions broke the incitement exception and therefore were no longer protected by the first amendment, as he  encouraged his followers to engage in unlawful behavior. They argue that Trump, as a public figure and the President at the time, had a responsibility to use his platform responsibly and promote peaceful resolutions.

Protected Political Speech:

Others argue that Trump’s claims, although controversial and provocative, could be classified under protected political speech. They strongly emphasize that the First Amendment holds the right to express strong opinions and engage in heated political discourse. Supporters of this perspective claim that holding Trump accountable would set a dangerous model for restricting free speech. They strongly emphasize the importance of protecting political discourse, even if it includes statements that some may find objectionable. On top of this they argue that no direct statements asking for his supporters to storm capitol hill, were made by Trump. I believe that Trump should be held accountable for his actions because although he did not directly state that his supporters should attack, he did imply it by saying that this was a “test of strength.” In conclusion, the debate surrounding the accountability of Donald Trump for the events of January 6th reflects the complexities of applying the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech Clause.

 

Articles 5, 6, and 7

Video

Written Component

During the Constitutional Convention, delegates from around the new United States of America came together to formulate a strong nation to replace the weak confederacy that emerged after the Revolutionary War. Article Five of said Constitution was written to give the country the ability to change as the world around it changed. Article Six was created to hold up the financial reputation of America by transferring debts, as well as sustain the standards set in earlier articles as the supreme law of the United States. Article Seven was created to streamline the process of ratifying the Constitution. 

Article Five spells out the process that the federal government has to go through in order to amend the Constitution. Either Congress can present an amendment by gathering two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to approve the amendment, or if the legislatures of two-thirds of the states come together to propose an amendment, Congress will call a convention and amendments will be proposed. Following this, three-fourths of state legislators must ratify the amendment. Congress could also decide to have the states call a convention purely to ratify an amendment. A final clause was tacked on to the end of this amendment stating that no amendment could be passed inhibiting the slave trade until 1808. Article Six transfers the debt and prior treaties from the national government under the Articles of Confederation to the new Constitution. It also states that the federal government (and therefore the Constitution) is the supreme authority in America. Finally, it specifies that oaths should be made by legislators and executives to the people of the United States instead of a religious test as a barrier to entry. Article Seven of the Constitution states that only nine states are required to ratify the Constitution for it to be the binding federal document, and it lists all 13 states and the order in which they will call a Convention to vote on the validity of the Constitution. 

An example of a complex ratification process is the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), an amendment to codify the equality of the sexes in law, was ratified by 30 states within the first year of its proposal but it met opposition after this 30-state benchmark over concerns that women would no longer be exempt from compulsory military service as well as other issues. There are other cases of discrepancy between federal and state power like some campaign finance laws and the legalization of marijuana in spite of the Controlled Substances Act.

During the initial creation of the country, the goal was as little central regulation as possible, but this turned out to be a weak way to organize the United States as many consequential regulations changed from state to state. The Constitution’s significance comes from the combination of general principles found in state Constitutions and rolled them into one document that set the federal government as the highest rule of law in the United States. Instead of changing the federal supremacy clause, the Constitution should clarify the Elasticity Clause or refine the Tenth Amendment to clarify specifically how elastic the powers of the federal government is or where state jurisdiction starts. 

Bibliography

Congress, The Federal Status of Marijuana and the Expanding Policy Gap with States, H.R. Doc., at 3 (Mar. 6, 2023). Accessed June 2, 2023. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/IF/IF12270.

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Equal Rights Amendment.” Britannica. Last modified April 27, 2023. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.britannica.com/topic/Equal-Rights-Amendment.

Oyez. “Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee V. Federal Election Commission.” In Oyez. Last modified 2023. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/95-489.

A Deconstruction of the 4th (and why its meaning has changed)

Video

Written Component

The writs of assistance were search warrants issued to British law enforcement officers to search ships and homes for smuggled goods to upkeep smuggling laws. These writs of assistance and general warrants that England was imposing on the colonial homes and businesses, specifically to enforce trade and navigation laws, must have concerned the authors of the Bill of Rights. Limiting the power the government has on searching and seizing the peoples’ property would especially be an anti-federalist goal since they advocated for individual liberties.   

The common interpretation of the fourth amendment centers around safeguarding the security of individuals, ensuring that neither they nor their belongings can be encroached upon or violated without a reasonable warrant. Warrants are typically awarded to enforcement officers by a judge or a magistrate and must be produced based on probable cause, or be reasonable enough to confiscate or enter your property. Additionally, warrants must be clear about what they will allow authorities to collect or search. The goal of the fourth amendment is that of maintaining citizens’ privacy and security so that you and your property cannot be intruded on or violated without a warrant.   

The exclusionary evidence rule makes all evidence that has been collected illegally, void. The Fourth Amendment has sparked debate over whether the methods of search for the collection of evidence are legal or not. Recently, the controversy has centered due to a shift of applications from physical property, such as the search of your house or your belongings, to informational or intellectual property, such as the mass collection of your internet metadata. Specifically, digital privacy, or the safeguarding of logs that internet providers or telecommunications companies store on servers has been at issue, since the information citizens feel violated by the collection and search of their personal, otherwise private data. On the other hand, the search and collection of evidence helps catch serious criminals who wouldn’t have been otherwise caught. This complicates matters because who decides when the collection is necessary and when it is intrusive?   

Locke considered the right to private property a natural right. Locke’s enlightenment ideals align with the fourth amendment right to no seizure without a proper warrant because he believed the property was private.  I find the interpretation times have changed argument more effective because it points out the similarities between physical and non-physical property. The conflict I come to with the argument that informational property should be treated the same as physical is that times have changed, and oftentimes, there is more information about us online than in our own homes. We should have the right to keep that information private. Although the data is available to internet companies, internet companies do not have the power to arrest you on your own, but the government does. The collection of data can fall under the Fourth Amendment depending on who is collecting it. If I could amend the Fourth Amendment, I would make a point to differentiate what rights people have regarding the security of their physical property versus their digital property.

The Declare War Clause and Its Multiple Interpretations

Video

Written Component

America’s primary military conflicts were fought without formal acknowledgment during the immediate post-ratification period. In the early post-ratification period, the Declare War Clause was interpreted to limit the President’s power to declare war independently. The Clause requires a formal declaration of war from Congress for the United States to use force against another country.

Many founders saw this clause as an essential limit on the President’s power and a way to ensure a formal acknowledgment of war was required before the country engaged in military conflicts. The meaning of this text, and its intention, is that The Constitution grants Congress the sole power to declare war. However, there have been various interpretations of the true meaning of the clause. There are four instances where the President can engage in military activity that complies with the Declare War Clause. First, the President may use military force if specifically authorized by Congress.

Second, the President can independently engage in disputes if it is in response to an attack on the United States. Third, the President may use the Commander-in-chief power and other constitutional powers to deploy U.S. forces in situations that do not amount to war. Finally, the President can use force under the authority of the United Nations, which some people have argued can substitute for approval by Congress.  

Scholars and commentators have multiple interpretations of this clause. Some commentators have stated that presidents have claimed authorization from informal or indirect congressional actions, such as approval of military spending, assent by congressional leaders, or even Congress’s failure to object to ongoing hostilities instead of formal direct authorization. In addition to attacks on U.S. territory, defensive responses can extend to attacks on U.S. citizens, forces abroad, or U.S. allies and U.S. interests. 

Multiple scholars have claimed that presidents can initiate the use of force independently without the consent of Congress. For example, President Truman ordered U.S. forces into combat in Korea in 1973, and President Obama used air strikes to support the ouster of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya. Regardless of the original meaning, these examples have established a modern practice that allows the President to have a good amount of independent military power. In the Prize Cases of 1863, the Supreme Court supported Abraham Lincoln’s decision to blockade the Confederate ports following the attack on Fort Summers. On April 19 and 27, 1861, Lincoln issued decrees authorizing a blockade of Confederate ports, yet Congress did not officially recognize a state of war until July 13.

People argued that Lincoln exceeded his constitutional boundaries, but the Supreme Court decided he acted within his rights. While Congress could declare war, it was the President’s responsibility as commander-in-chief to respond to attacks and resist insurrection. This clause offers a debate over a ruler’s constitutional power and how there needs to be a checking system to limit them. Monstisque highly agreed with the notion of checks and balances and concluded that the best form of government was one in which all branches of government were separate and kept each other in check to prevent any branch from becoming too powerful. Although this clause is not a direct product of the checks and balances, the sentiment is the same.

The Constitution gives Congress this executive power to ensure the President cannot abuse his position. The most convincing interpretation is that presidents can independently engage in disputes as a defensive measure to protect the nation’s security. If an external force poses a threat to the integrity of American citizens, a defensive reaction is mandatory for the safety of the country.

Matilda Beyer History Showcase Seventh Amendment

Video

Written Component

The seventh amendment was created in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights to preserve a citizen’s right to trial by jury and to keep the case from being reexamined in court. This amendment extends the right to a jury trial to federal civil cases such as car accidents, corporation disputes, and employment disputes when the lawsuit exceeds twenty dollars.

This amendment played a large part in gaining independence during the revolutionary war. American juries were used to nullify laws from Britain, especially ones pertaining to unfair taxing. Trials by jury have proved to be important after the war in protecting citizens from biased judges and government abuse of power. Once the jury has come to a conclusion, the case cannot be reexamined in court. The importance of juries led to Americans making civil jury trials a right for all citizens. Despite this amendment, juries only decide less than one percent of civil cases filed in court. In the 1930s, courts preferred judges and gave them more power, therefore decreasing the popularity of juries.

To exercise this right, the claim must be civil rather than a criminal claim, meaning that money for damages is seeked. It must be based on federal law, or in federal court, not state. The lawsuit must be over 20 dollars. As mentioned twice in the amendment, the lawsuit must also be a claim to which the English common law of 1791 would have also allowed a jury. Common law deals with monetary payment being sought for loss, as opposed to equity law where the issue is fixed by imposing court orders. The most uncertain part of the seventh amendment is what exactly “common law” means. In the United States, common law is law declared by judges, but in 1791 it meant the law and procedure of the courts that used juries.

While the rules around the common law are strict, some Supreme Court cases, for example Colgrove v. Battin in 1973, demonstrated how substance comes before procedures. This court case allows the jury of civil cases to consist of six people instead of twelve. In the case Feltner v. Columbia Pictures Television in 1998, the court denied Feltner’s request for trial by jury because this amendment does not provide this right on statutory damage. Later, it was decided that the seventh amendment does extend the right to trial by jury for copyright disputes.

This is not the case for patent claims, as shown in the Markman v. Westview Instruments case two years prior, where it was decided that judges, not juries, should find the acquired meaning of patent terms. The seventh amendment deals with the protection of individual rights and keeps the government from getting too involved in the judicial process, similarly to John Locke’s ideas that a judge should be unbiased. When judges are unreliable, trial by jury is the answer. This is one of the most straightforward amendments, and there is not much that can be done to make it any clearer.

Analysis of the Free Exercise Clause in the First Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Free Exercise Clause states that Congress cannot make laws “prohibiting the free exercise” of religious beliefs. The clause is part of the Bill of Rights, ten constitutional amendments that listed rights the federal government must protect. It was a natural outgrowth of a long debate about religious freedom in the Thirteen Colonies, where some colonies restricted religion while others, such as Virginia, enabled religious freedom. Founding Fathers like Patrick Henry and Thomas Jefferson advocated for religious freedom, which was eventually instated in the First Amendment. 

The plain English interpretation of the Free Exercise Clause is that Congress may not pass laws that stop citizens from practicing their religion. However, the Supreme Court has interpreted this clause to allow some limitations. The central question for interpreting the clause is to what extent it protects religious actions considered harmful to society. In the case Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court decided that, while a law may not regulate religious beliefs, it can regulate actions that result from those beliefs. The Supreme Court revised the rules in Wisconsin v. Yoder to limit laws that regulate religion to situations where the public interest is “compelling,” meaning it must be absolutely necessary to protect the state or citizens. Further laws and cases have added that regulations on religious actions must use the “least restrictive means,” limiting religious expression as little as possible even if that makes enforcing laws harder. The result of these interpretations is a compromise between total adherence and disregard for the Free Exercise Clause

The debate surrounding the Free Exercise Clause reflects multiple themes from our class and throughout history. The American Constitution, including    a vision of religious tolerance developed by European Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke and Voltaire demonstrates history’s  interconnectedness. The clause also shows how laws reveal values, similar to how the Manden Charter in Mali provided a lens into that society. Finally, the Free Exercise Clause demonstrates the complexities of dealing with  the “Other,” protecting minority rights in the Constitution but allowing old white men with power to limit those protections through court cases.

Personally, when it comes to the Free Exercise Clause, I think both abolishment or literal interpretation would be dangerous. Without the clause, the majority could dictate the expression of beliefs of minority groups. A literal interpretation, however, would let people use religion as an excuse and make it impossible to protect society. The only solution is a compromise as the court has attempted to achieve, but it is challenging to find the perfect balance. This difficulty leads to the Supreme Court occasionally allowing unjust violations, like upholding President Trump’s “Muslim Ban” against many majority Muslim countries. It also sometimes allows religious practices that harm people, such as making it legal for employers to deny full healthcare due to religious beliefs in the case Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores. While compromises may be complicated and lead to some bad decisions, finding a balance is necessary to create a functioning democracy.

Jack Korngold — 1st Amendment: Freedom of Speech Clause

Video

Written Component

First Amendment — Freedom of Speech Clause 

“Congress shall make no law . . .  abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” 

The concept of free speech per the First Amendment is a critical principle introduced in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The historical context for this clause is rooted in the American experience with the oppressive government of the British Empire. Indeed, the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution to satisfy the concerns of the Anti-Federalists to protect the rights of individuals from the power of the central government. Even before the Revolution, journalist John Peter Zenger was prosecuted by the colonial government of Massachusetts for printing unpopular truths about the Governor.

This prosecution reflected a suppression of free speech, which the colonists believed violated their inalienable rights. The common interpretation of free speech rights has been the duty to protect both an individual’s and groups’ ability to express themselves from government intervention across various mediums, including speech, print and online forums. This protection is quite broad and encompasses a variety of beliefs, and includes the protection of opinions that many Americans might find distasteful or offensive.

Even the burning of the American Flag as a form of political speech was protected by the Supreme Court as demonstrated in the ruling of the Texas vs. Johnson case in 1989. The broad interpretation of free speech rights is seen as necessary for the preservation of our democracy. A central debate about this Constitutional right is how restrictive our interpretation should be in its protection. One view is that free speech should be limited for national security purposes — in the Schenck v. United States case, the Supreme Court read the First Amendment in a restricted way so that people could not criticize the government in a time of war and argued that if there was “clear and present danger” to the country, then the speech could be restricted. In contrast, in the 1969 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, the court was less restrictive and ruled that high school students could protest the Vietnam War and that teachers could not stop the students from showing their opposition.

This concept of free speech in the First Amendment is clearly an example of an “inalienable right” that earlier thinkers, such as John Locke, thought must be guaranteed by a government based on the Social Contract. This right also reflects Rousseau’s view of the General Will as expressed in his conception of the Social Contract. With respect to how restrictive our interpretation should be, it would be necessary to have high standards for what constitutes a “clear and present danger” to the country as highlighted by the Schenck case.

The standards for enforcement must be strict, otherwise governments could unjustly suppress opposing points of view that represent no real threat to the country, but that interfere with an Administration’s political agenda. Some have also argued for the possibility of amending the language of this clause to remove the protections for “hate speech.” My proposal is that hate speech be more narrowly defined in the Amendment by words or images that incite or provoke violence or harm against a particular group purely because of their identity. Regardless of differences of opinion, the Free Speech clause of the First Amendment is a foundational element of American society, even though we might not always agree on how it is to be interpreted.

 

Bibliography

Vile, John R. “John Peter Zenger.” In The First Amendment Encyclopedia, edited by Middle Tennessee State University. Middle Tennessee State University, 2009. Last modified 2009. Accessed June 2, 2023. https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1235/john-peter-zenger.

 

There was no information on John Peter Zenger in the Oyez Archive, and so, I cited an outside source. All of the other cases however, are from the Oyez Archive.

Ongoing Debate with Impeachment, Article II Section IV – Holden MacDougall

Video

Written Component

Amendment II Section IV, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The American Revolution resolved in a separation from Britain and gave rise to the need for a new governmental structure without a monarch. In an attempt to create a decentralized government with separate and interdependent powers, the framers viewed it as necessary to give congress the power of impeachment. It is a part of the system of checks and balances.

This clause is responding to fears of unchecked and tyrannical power in the government, as well as ideas brought about by the absolutist monarchy french revolution. It also echoes theories of John Locke, Rousseau, and Montesquieu. The commonly understood meaning of the impeachment clause is that a government official of the United States (typically a federal judge, President, or Vice President.) can be impeached and removed from office if convicted of committing a serious crime and/or abuse of office. Various interpretations of the impeachment clause arise when one considers the type of crime being committed, and whether that crime relates to the public office or private life of the accused person.

An interpretation that would make impeachment a over powerful political weapon is if impeachment concerned both the public and private life of a government official, and if any forms of misconduct or misbehavior were accepted as ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’. A narrower interpretation considers only treason, bribery, and crimes committed relating to a government official’s public office to be an impeachable offense. Some scholars believe that a broad interpretation of the impeachment power would allow a single political party or opponent to potentially abuse this power to eliminate select people  by convicting them of vague forms of misconduct.

This would make impeachment also a very powerful tool for Congress ( more specifically the senate, which has the power to try all impeachments). The case, Nixon v. United States (1993), involved the debate over impeachment and the power it gives to the Senate. The ruling affirms that impeachment power is solely assigned to the Senate and House of Representatives. This case relates to the debate over the interpretation of  “high crimes and misdemeanors” and how much power this phrase could give to those in the Senate. Since Nixon v. United States deemed Senate impeachment trials ‘non-justiciable’, meaning that they are not able to be resolved through law alone, it indicates that impeachment trials concern acts that do not fall under the law, rather are acts of misconduct, which highlights the importance of defining what acts are ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’.

This provision connects to the writings of Montesquieu, who argued for separation of powers in government, because the impeachment power is part of a system of checks and balances that is core to the U.S. constitution, and to Rousseau, who expressed that government should serve the general will of the people, because impeachment concerns those whom the people elect the government. I find the interpretation that ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ mentioned article II, section IV only concern matters of public office that harm the well-being of the citizens more persuasive than impeachment on the grounds of a matter of private life because, like with any job, a person is typically fired based acts committed and relating to the workplace that affects their job and the company, rather than because of acts associated with one’s private life.

I would advocate amending the phrase “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. This area is the primary source of divergent interpretations of this clause because of its vagueness, so amending it would help to clarify the types of crimes worthy of impeachment.

The Sixth Amendment: Equitable Treatment For All

Video

Written Component

The Sixth Amendment was created to both organize the legal system and help give defendants a fair and legitimate trial. The authors of the amendment created this amendment in response to the disorganized, unjust legal system in effect at the time the Constitution was ratified.  The Amendment gives defendants the right to a trial without unreasonable delay with an unbiased jury, in which the defendant is informed of their accuser and the charges against them. They are also given the right to an attorney either hired personally or by the government if the defendant cannot afford a private lawyer. The Amendment also gives defendants the right to call witnesses.  Among the many rights granted by the Sixth Amendment, “assistance of counsel” and the right to an “impartial jury” have been the most heavily debated in the courts and by scholars. 

In defining the meaning of the right to assistance of counsel, the Supreme Court has looked to the reality of the situation and the consequences to a defendant to determine if constitutional requirements are met. Often, public defense lawyers hired by the government are tasked with hundreds of cases at once, not allowing them to fully research and develop a case for a client. In some situations, public defenders ask their clients to plead guilty for a shorter sentence, even when an innocent verdict is possible, just to save time and effort. In Gideon v. Wainwright, a 1963 Supreme Court case, Clarence Gideon was denied his right to free counsel in a Florida trial for breaking and entering because Florida state law only required that defendants be granted counsel if the death penalty were a possible sentence. The Supreme Court held the Florida law unconstitutional, and concluded that in all trials where a possible sentence could include prison time, the defendant is entitled to “effective” counsel. 

Some scholars today argue that the scope of the Sixth Amendment should be restricted to increase its effectiveness in cases where consequences are the most grave. For example, limiting the right to situations where defendants face prison time of a year or more or potential deportation could increase the effectiveness of public defenders by reducing their caseload. Scholars also suggest that trials outside the scope of the Sixth Amendment be simplified, allowing defendants to represent themselves with minimal assistance from court clerks. These two changes could have the effect of increasing the effectiveness of counsel in consequential cases and enabling defendants to competently defend themselves in simpler situations, both of which would make trials more impartial and equitable for those who cannot afford a private attorney, part of the sixth amendment’s original purpose. 

The Amendment’s right to “impartial jury” has also ignited debate. One often discussed topic is whether juries should know about possible sentences or play a part in sentencing before coming to a verdict. This is extremely important in cases punishable by a long prison sentence, death, or deportation. For these situations, the jury needs to know their true power to further strengthen their “impartiality”, as envisioned by the amendment. However, the Supreme Court has never agreed with this point of view. Scholars cite Padilla v. Kentucky, a 2010 case in which the Supreme Court decided that lawyers must disclose to their clients if a guilty verdict could result in deportation. The court stated that not doing so would be violating the defendant’s right to “effective” counsel. It can be argued that if attorneys not letting their clients know of possible sentences is unconstitutional, then why is the jury exempt from being informed of sentencing so they can correctly understand the consequence of their verdict? Making this change to the interpretation of “impartial jury” in the Sixth Amendment would be effective in further strengthening the amendment’s goal of making trials fair and just for all. 

The Third Amendment– Why is it important today?

Video

Written Component

A lot of the context behind the Third Amendment stems from America and Britain’s tensions before the American Revolution. After the Seven Years War between Britain and France, Parliament passed the Quartering Act in 1765, which required American colonists to provide barracks or inns, stables, and alehouses for British soldiers to sleep in. The colonists were also required to provide provisions such as bedding, firewood, and beer. The Third Amendment constitutionally advocates for rights that previous oppressive laws like the Quartering Act denied. It also aligns with the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including liberty and the right to personal property. 

The Third Amendment is commonly interpreted as largely limiting the federal government’s ability to quarter soldiers in any person’s private home. The term quarter in this amendment has been commonly interpreted to mean sheltering, placing, or lodging. The phrases “time of peace” and “time of war” refer to the American colonists after the Seven Years War who were forced to quarter British soldiers despite a lack of war or conflict. 

The Third Amendment is one of the least cited and independently debated amendments, but the few interpretations about it still reveal significant details about the intent behind the amendment and its importance to the Constitution throughout history. A notable landmark case directly addressing the Third Amendment was the 1982 Engblom v. Carey case. This case was the first time the Third Amendment was ever interpreted. Engblom v. Carey was a case concerning whether the state of New York violated the Third Amendment rights of correctional officers when it used their state-owned residences to house New York National Guards. In the process of analyzing the case and specific use of the Third Amendment, the Second Circuit Court ended up making three distinct interpretations. The first is how national guards fit the Third Amendment’s description of a “Soldier”. The second was how the Third Amendment’s restrictions applied to state governments as well as the federal government. Finally, the third interpretation was that the Third Amendment also applied to people who were not owners of the property, as long as they had control over the privacy of the property. All of these interpretations illustrate the Third Amendment as less of an exclusive law protecting the private properties of a select few from an oppressive government and military, but more of a law protecting the properties of the general public from various enforcers under governments of all scales. The interpretations of the Third Amendment in Engblom v. Carey make the amendment broader and more applicable in modern contexts.

The Third Amendment and its implications are strongly connected to concepts about establishing independence and national identity. Language in this section of the constitution such as “Soldier” and “quartered” directly refers to its historical context, which included the Quartering Act. By including an amendment that directly opposed Britain’s oppressive Quartering Act, the colonies were able to future separate themselves from Britain and portray themselves as beacons of liberty, people’s rights, and anti-oppression. The Constitution’s Third Amendment is a prominent example of how the colonies were able to forge a uniting anti-Britain identity and establish themselves as an independent, revolutionary nation. This is similar to the impact of the Declaration of Independence over 10 years prior, where unique attributes of the United States were listed to contribute towards the making of a novel national and international identity.