amendment

Austin Gordon – Fourth Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Fourth Amendment is one of the most impactful constitutional amendments, with key implications throughout all 250 years of America’s history. The amendment provides people the right to not have their “persons, houses, papers, and effects”, or in today’s terms, themselves, their home, their papers, or any other property, searched or seized/detained by the government. In order for the government to do so, they must have a search warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed.

The amendment additionally states that any search warrant must be specific in describing what can be searched or seized by the government.This amendment is primarily in response to “writs of assistance”, which were general search warrants that allowed officials to search any location they deemed suspicious, issued by the British before the revolution. This allowed British officials to search essentially anything they wanted, allowing them to become massively intrusive and invade the privacy of colonists.

The fourth amendment was made to ensure that these abusive and unjust practices were not replicated by the new American government, and made sure that a point of revolutionary outrage was addressed in the Constitution. The requirement for search warrants to be highly specific made by the amendment is in direct response to the writs, as the Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that officials could not abuse search warrants to unnecessarily invade privacy.  In the nearly 250 years since the amendment was written, security, law enforcement, and technology have changed in ways unimaginable to the Founding Fathers, leaving it up to the courts to interpret the amendment and apply it to new situations. The most important fourth amendment case was Weeks vs United States in 1914, in which Weeks argued that the items that were seized from him illegally could not legally be used against him in court.

The court sided unanimously with Weeks, ruling that any illegally acquired evidence could not be used in court. This case created a consequence for violating the fourth amendment, and without it, the rights it provides could not be effectively upheld. More recent cases like Kyllo vs United States in 2001, in which Kyllo argued that the police’s use of thermal scans on his home without a warrant was a violation of the fourth amendment, and won. Cases like this one have allowed the fourth amendment to evolve and protect the people against new technology or policing practices.

Justices dissenting in cases like these will often argue the originalist interpretation of the amendment, arguing that we should only consider the amendment within the scope of the era in which it was created. I, as well as the majority of legal scholars, disagree with this theory, and believe that evolving fourth amendment protections is necessary to protect rights. One potential way to further protect people’s fourth amendment rights would be to encourage congress to create laws around new security practices or technologies to enforce compliance with the fourth amendment, as the courts can only step in once a violation has already occurred. But as long as our legal system stands, the fourth amendment will continue to protect the American people for years to come.

Leila – The Third Amendment

Video

Written Component

 

The Third Amendment

The Third Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights, providing that soldiers cannot stay in American citizens’ private homes without the homeowners’ consent. It was in response to British soldiers taking over colonists’ homes without the owners’ approval during the colonial period. The British had passed the Quartering Acts of 1765 and 1774 which made the colonists’ lives and the intrusion of the British soldiers into their homes even worse.

These Acts stated that colonists had to house soldiers in barracks, and, if that was not an option, soldiers would come into people’s homes where their necessities would be provided and paid for. These Acts also stated that British soldiers could take over uninhabited buildings and barns, allowing even more spaces to be commandeered by the British. The colonists saw this as an invasion of property and privacy. In addition, many soldiers were sick with diseases including smallpox. The Third Amendment was a response to these Acts, and an important protection for private property, life and privacy. 

There are several interpretations of the philosophy behind the Third Amendment. One interpretation focuses on the Third Amendment as giving more power to civilians than the militia or the government. Another interpretation centers on the right to privacy. These themes are consistent with concepts supported by Enlightenment thinkers such as John Locke who promoted similar ideas about Natural Rights, regarding a limited government and protected rights of the people such as life, liberty and property.  Locke believed that governments should be based on these ideas.

Although the Third Amendment comes up infrequently in case law, it has been brought up in a few legal cases. In Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965, a case about the right of married people to purchase birth control, the Amendment is cited as a protection of Americans’ privacy. In cases related to abortion, the Third Amendment has been used to argue that abortion rights are protected by inference in the Constitution. [1] Specifically, the Third Amendment protects privacy rights, and freedom from government interference in people’s homes. This is important because a right to “privacy” is not explicitly contained in the Constitution. Challengers to abortion rights often argue that since the specific right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, cases that protect important human rights under a “privacy” analysis can be overruled. The Third Amendment gives some weight to privacy protections though often does not apply to cases not involving soldiers and homes. An interesting modern interpretation even speaks to the right to “freedom from infection” contained in the Third Amendment. [2]  One question would be if the Third Amendment served its purpose. If it was truly intended to protect privacy why didn’t it state that more clearly. A house is just a place, but a home is a place where you are free with privacy.

    1.  The Bill of Rights Institute, “Griswold v Connecticut (1965),” The Bill of Rights Institute, 2023, https://billofrightsinstitute.org/e-lessons/griswold-v-connecticut-1965.
    2. Alexander Zhang, “The Forgotten Third Amendment Could Give Pandemic-Struck America a Way Forward,” The Atlantic, May 31, 2020, https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/10/could-third-amendment-protect-against-infection/616791/.

(It wouldn’t do the proper indenting) 

The First Amendment: Free Speech and Freedom of Speech

Video

Written Component

In the constitution, the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights protects Americans freedom of speech. When the Bill of Rights was written in 1789, the American colonies had recently revolted against British rule. Previously, the British Monarchy had controlled the press and saying bad things about the British crown was a crime one that could be punished by imprisonment or death. However, in writing the Constitution, and adapting it with the Bill of Rights, the founding fathers attempted to enshrine important ideals of democracy — that people should be free to say what they wish and the press should be able to criticize public officials — with the First Amendment.

It is important to note that this does not apply to private companies, employers, or landowners. While the amendment refers only that Congress may not restrict freedom of speech, the Supreme Court has ruled that this applies to the entire Federal government. Moreover, in the case of Gitlow v. New York (1925) the Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment also restricts the power of states and local governments. The protections of the First Amendment are not unilateral, however, and there are a few hotly debated exceptions of when free speech is, or is not, protected. Government officials, for example public school teachers, can be punished for certain kinds of speech not endorsed by the government.

Filters not based on the content of a message but rather can be based on some other quality such as noise or other kinds of disruption are sometimes not restricted, like in the case of Turner Broadcasting Inc. v. FCC (1994) but this is on a varying case by case basis. Finally, the Supreme Court has ruled that the government can restrict “low” speech. Defamation, threats, obscenities, and misleading advertising all constitute “low” speech that the government regulates.

The Supreme Court is extremely loath to use “low” speech. For example, the 1978 case of National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie was one of the most controversial decisions in the history of the United States Supreme Court, wherein the judges defended the freedom of a neo-Nazi group that aimed to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois. The NSPA argued that the Illinois Supreme Court violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment by restricting their right to protest. Today, the First Amendment is still a matter of hot debate.

An example of an important issue regarding the modern day application of the First Amendment arises from campaign donations in politics. The Supreme Court has held that political contributions are “speech” and are thus protected by the First Amendment. That said, the Supreme Court has ruled the government is allowed to regulate contributions if there is a risk of undue influence in Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and in McConnell v. The Federal Election Commission (2003) the Court ruled that the government could regulate corporation’s spending on political expenditure. All in all, these issues of free speech and the questions of what kinds of expression the government should, and should not, restrict extend into the present day and can have serious ramifications on everyday life, elections, and more. 

Amendment 5 – Due Process Clause

Video

Written Component

The historical forces and motivation behind the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause largely consisted of fears of conviction without trial and the stripping of life, liberty, and property without proper processes, and a desire to prevent such events. It was largely derived from the Magna Carta, a statement of rights issued in 11th Century England that ensured no citizen would be imprisoned or arrested unless it was in accordance with a law or by means of peers’ judgment. The response may also be attributed to British violations of due process in regard to juries when America was a colony.

The common interpretation of the Due Process Clause is that it ensures the government abides by the laws. The clause aims to ensure no person’s life, liberty, and property are struck without the due process of law. It also includes procedural due process, which refers to procedures surrounding the processes of law, and has been interpreted to refer to substantive due process, which sets substantive limits to prevent the government from removing certain freedoms. 

John C. Harrison utilizes an historical interpretation of the Constitution to argue that the clause is  a reiteration of the separation of powers and it lacks support for substantive due process due to the vagueness of the language. It is a statement that only the Courts are equipped to deprive life, liberty, and property, not the Executive or Legislative Branches. He also believes the clause reiterates the provision that the government must follow the law, similarly to how the Magna Carta provides that the King must follow the laws. 

Roger A. Fairfax believes that the clause addresses both the availability and equity of procedures and informs what the government may necessitate or forbid. His main argument centers around the vagueness doctrine of the clause as an important, but overlooked asset in addition to substantive and procedural due process. For evidence, he cites the Johnson v. United States (2015) Supreme Court decision to illustrate the power of the vagueness doctrine. Given that fair notice is required by means of the Due Process Clause, the Court concluded that the term “violent felony” did not provide ample fair notice to all defendants as to sentences they may face due to the vagueness of the provision. At the end of the essay, he argues that the prohibition of vagueness places a lid on governmental action, which is exactly what substantive due process strives to do. 

Fairfax’s argument is more persuasive for three reasons. Firstly, he uses a specific case as evidence, which Harrison does not. Secondly, Harrison’s argument that the clause is a part of the separation of powers is ineffective due to the fact that it would be redundant given other measures in the Constitution. This is not likely given the Framers’ close examination and heated debate of the Constitution. Thirdly, Harrison’s argument that the clause does not support substantive due process due to its vagueness is countered by the premise of fair notice. While not explicitly stated, the clause is widely understood to include fair notice, which leads one to apply the same principle to substantive due process despite the lack of explicit statement.

The Third Amendment – Emmy Casselman

Video

Written Component

The Third Amendment addresses the issue of involuntary quartering of British soldiers in the American colonies during times of war and peace, which limits the federal government’s ability to use private homes as housing for soldiers. Before this law was created, the Quartering Acts allowed for British soldiers to stay in the colonists homes, without the consent of the owner. Not only were the owners required to shelter the soldiers, but they had to provide food, bedding, beer, eating utensils, and much more, which was very invasive and destroyed the homes of the colonsists.

Since Britain was in debt, the British could not afford to house their soldiers themselves, so they put the burden and expense on the Americans, who were the enemies. The colonists felt that housing British soldiers without their permission was an invasion of privacy by the government and violated the 1689 English Bill of Rights. Eventually in 1766, the colonists refused to house the soldiers, forcing them to remain on the ships they arrived on, and later when the Bill of Rights was being written, made sure to include the subject of quartering soldiers, as they hoped housing their enemies would end. The Third Amendment does not have much direct Constitutional relevance at present.

Even though the federal government would never ask people to house soldiers today, there are some modern implications. It suggests that people have the right to domestic privacy and that they are not subject to home invasion by the government or soldiers, even in times of war. It is also the only part of the Constitution that addresses the relationship between civilians and soldiers, and this in particular emphasizes the control the people have over armed forces. Although this Amendment was important, just like all the others, there are not many Supreme Court cases that cite the Third Amendment. The lack of judicial interpretation may be because of the straightforward phrasing.

One of the few Supreme Court cases that mentions the Third Amendment is Griswold v. Connecticut, a case involving the constitutional right to contraception. It uses the Third Amendment as one of several constitutional guarantees with “penumbras” that “create zones of privacy.” Furthermore, in Katz v. Connecticut, in concern of a “search” or “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, the Court noted the Third Amendment as “another aspect of privacy from governmental intrusion.” In Engblom v. Carey, the only court case to examine the Third Amendment in depth, discussed whether or not the state of New York violated correction officers’ Third Amendment rights when it used their state-owned residences without their consent to house New York National Guards.

As said before, although people today would not be asked to quarter soldiers, the fact that people have the right to privacy in their homes is very modern. Just like the Enlightenment thinkers, this idea was new and one people liked, especially in a time where America was trying to become independent from Britain. The enlightenment thoughts on quartering soldiers led to the American Revolution, and eventually, their freedom. 

Fourth Amendment

Video

Written Component

 The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution outlines the powers of the police to search and seize the property of citizens. At the time of its ratification, December 15, 1791, two forms of search in the colonies and England infringed on people’s privacy. In England, “general warrants” allowed royal officials to search a person’s belongings upon suspicion of political opposition. In the colonies, “writs of assistance” allowed customhouse officers, sheriffs, constables, and other officials to search any house for smuggled goods without specifying the house or the goods. The Fourth Amendment limits government power to seize and search people, their property, and their homes. Some cases require warrants to conduct searches, while probable cause is enough for others. To obtain a warrant, the government must show probable cause—a certain level of suspicion of criminal activity—to justify the search. 

The Palmer Raids of 1920 are an example of how the Fourth Amendment has been interpreted in divergent ways. After the Russian Revolution, which establish a communist state, Americans feared a similar domestic revolution. The Red Scare, lasting from 1970 to 1920, was a widespread fear of immigrants creating a rise in anarchism, communism, and radical leftist ideologies. To reduce the number of immigrants, the U.S. Department of Justice, led by A. Mitchell Palmer, conducted a series of arrests known as the Palmer Raids. Those detained were suspected of sympathizing with communists or anarchists. Many immigrants, merely speaking with an accent, were arrested, surpassing the number of warrants issued. The arrests were lawful, the department argued, because the suspects supported overthrowing the government. Prominent lawyers and legal scholars argued that the arrests were unconstitutional. Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter, Ernst Freund, and Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound wrote that the Department lacked warrants, allowed officers to use unrestrained force, and  seize documents at will.

The Fourth Amendment states what cannot happen in cases of search and seizure, but not what will happen if it is violated. The 1920s Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States court case illustrates how the Fourth Amendment has been breached, then debated. Silverthorne attempted to evade paying taxes, so Federal officers searched the company’s office and copied various documents “without a shadow of authority” said Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The court’s ruling held that illegally copied evidence was tainted, so the government couldn’t use it to frame a new indictment or prosecute. This is the exclusionary rule, prohibiting evidence unconstitutionally obtained to be used in court. If tainted evidence were allowed, Holmes’s ruling held, the police would attempt to find ways around the Fourth Amendment. The case illustrates how the parameters of the Fourth Amendment have been expanded and reinterpreted since its ratification.

The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with the requirement of warrants based on probable cause, exemplifies the Founding Father’s commitment to limiting the power of the government and protecting individual rights. This relates to Enlightenment thinker Baron de Montesquieu’s theory of separation of powers, which heavily influenced the U.S. Constitution. Montesquieu advocated for a system of checks and balances, where power is divided among several branches. This aimed to prevent a single individual or group from gaining too much power, which would protect the rights of the people. I find Justice Holmes’s interpretation persuasive and believe that while the amendment does not need change, fairly recent cases before the Supreme Court involving police searching vehicles without warrants have undermined this right. So perhaps there must be changes made to further enforce the fourth amendment. 


Works Cited

The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica. “Writ of Assistance.” In

    Encyclopaedia Britannica. Last modified February 28, 2020.

     https://www.britannica.com/topic/writ-of-assistance.

Encyclopedia of the American Constitution. “Silverthorne Lumber Co. V. United

     States 251 U.S. 385 (1920).” In Encyclopedia of the American Constitution.

     Last modified may 25, 2023. https://www.encyclopedia.com/politics/

     encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/

     Silverthorne-lumber-co-v-united-states-251-us-385-1920.  

Friedman, Barry, and Orin Kerr. “The Fourth Amendment.” In National Constitution

     Center. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/

     amendment-iv/interpretations/121. 

 

Leila Grey – The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Second Amendment was initially enforced because the American public was searching for a new normal after the American Revolution. During this time, anti-federalists were scared of having another oppressive government. The federalists believed that by allowing people to have guns, it would begin to lessen the amount of power the government had over people by giving them weapons to defend themselves. The common understanding of this amendment was that militias, made up of working class citizens, were able to have weapons solely for defensive purposes. Along with this, the militias were given limited military training to ensure their ability to defend themselves and others. Originally, the Second Amendment was only applied to the federal government and each individual state could come up with their own regulations regarding firearms and weapons. This later became a large debate about whether the federal or state government should be in charge of gun bans and mandates in each state.   

There have been many debates about the Second Amendment starting with the United States v. Cruikshank in 1876. The United States v. Cruikshank case argued that the federal government should not have authority over the individual states opinions on guns. There have also been differing opinions regarding the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Adam Winkler claimed that the Founding Fathers did not intend for the government to have guns without regulations and that when the amendment was placed, they had people checking and inspecting guns before and after they were purchased. He also states that the founders aimed for this amendment to ensure safety from a possible tyrannical government or invaders. However, in 2008 the case of District of Columbia v. Heller took place. Heller argued that the handgun regulations in D.C went against their individual constitutional right to be able to carry guns for self defense. The other side of this debate argued that the Second Amendment only defends a small individual right and it should be inferred that there would be state mandates in areas with high crime rates. This case is important because it was the first court case to address whether the right to bear arms applied to an individual or if it was intended only for state militias.   

I found that the D.C. side of the District of Columbia v. Heller case was more persuasive because Heller argues that the Second Amendment does not limit the right to bear arms to a militia, however, the amendment clearly states that when referencing a free state, an orderly militia is given the right to carry guns, not the individual. Even though the people who form a militia are not appointed the title of being a soldier, they are meant to defend their community if necessary. Since many states within the nation have advocated for the right to carry firearms, in those states there should be more regulations that explicitly state where guns will be allowed along with having those rules more heavily enforced. In addition to heavier mandates, there should also be background checks for people who want to buy guns to scan for any compromising factors, like a mental illness or previous criminal activity, that could lead to extreme violence or dangers.   

Dean Gans – 1st Amendment

Video

Written Component

The Constitution was ratified in 1788 and nearly 3 years after, the first amendment was passed. One of the provisions within the First Amendment was the crucial clause declaring that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” This addition to the Constitution was influenced by major Enlightenment principles. Many thinkers of the Enlightenment, like John Locke,  strongly believed that having freedom of speech without infringement of the government would further develop society because without interference from the government social progression would occur because of society being able to openly debate over social injustices.

Then, because of their democratic governmental system, they would be able to implement the outcomes of these debates into the government. The Freedom of speech clause could be seen as responding to their previous rulers Britain. Because of different taxation and America not receiving representation, they felt their government was flawed but they were heavily restricted from advocating those opinions By heavily restricting the government from being able to interfere with criticism toward the government, the framers of the Constitution could have been trying to protect America’s government from the same corruption the British monarchy had. 

The freedom of speech clause is commonly interpreted as allowing speech unless it incites or influences imminent violence, preventing the government from restricting anyone’s speech. Only the government is prohibited from denying freedom of speech. In certain circumstances, such as with private employers or principals, someone may be terminated or expelled due to their speech if there is a valid reason. Additionally, speech extends beyond verbal communication and includes signs, calls, or writings on various mediums, including online platforms. Overall, freedom of speech in the constitution reflects the essential principle of individuals expressing themselves without censorship or repression, serving as a crucial element of democratic governance, individual autonomy, and the protection of human rights.

The interpretation of the freedom of speech clause varies, with ongoing debates regarding the extent of government restrictions. Some scholars argue that the government should not limit speech unless it poses an immediate and evident danger, while others believe that while political speech should be unrestricted, the government can intervene if speech potentially incites danger, spreads misinformation, or harms the country’s reputation. For example, scholars such as Catherine MacKinnon, Jeremy Waldron, and Richard Delgado strongly believe that hate speech is violating people’s natural rights. They argue that although it is less direct, hate speech can cause other violence toward the group being hated which is unconstitutional. Other scholars believe that freedom of speech should be less limited like Geoffrey Stone. Stone, a constitutional law scholar, emphasizes the instrumental value of free speech for democratic governance. He argues that allowing a wide range of speech fosters public deliberation, encourages the discovery of truth, and facilitates social and political progress. Stone believes that even speech that is offensive or disagreeable should generally be protected.

Ultimately both sides are convincing but the more persuasive argument is that freedom of speech should be more limited. The reason freedom of speech should be more limited is because hate speech incites violence. Speech that promotes hatred or incites violence against individuals or groups can have harmful consequences for society. Limiting such speech aims to prevent the propagation of discrimination, hostility, and violence, which can threaten social cohesion and individuals’ well-being. Ultimately there isn’t one right answer, the specific limitations and their scope are often subject to debate, and finding the right balance between free expression and societal interests is an ongoing challenge.

Sam Shapiro-The Second Amendment

Video

Written Component

When the Constitution was ratified, many people believed that armies were a way for governments to oppress their citizens. The Second Amendment, which grants citizens the right to bear arms, served as a counterbalance to this potential threat to liberty. Citizens bearing arms allowed the government to utilize standalone militias consisting of regular people with their own guns as an alternative to a standing army. The right to bear arms also gave citizens a direct ability to resist tyranny.

However, the common interpretation of the Second Amendment, that it all grants citizens the right to bear arms, is subject to debate. Some argue that like the First and Fourth Amendments, the Second Amendment is an individual right granting personal protection and a right to self-defense. In this context, regulations cannot sacrifice one’s individual right to protection, and gun control laws must be extremely limited in nature to be constitutional. The ‘individual right’ argument was supported by the Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in D.C. vs Heller. This ruling overturned previous gun control restrictions in the District. 

Others argue that the Second Amendment supports a more limited right to bear arms. They argue that the first clause of the amendment, “a well regulated Militia,” is a restriction on gun ownership; gun control is therefore broadly permissible. This is further supported by the fact that gun control laws existed when this amendment was enacted. At the time, slaves and loyalists were banned from gun ownership, and laws specified which guns were allowed for militias to use. Some of these laws were intended for public safety. As a result, this side believes that gun ownership today, and the Second Amendment more broadly, must be placed in the context of public safety concerns.

Today, the Second Amendment has proven to be problematic because our society is very different from the founding fathers’ era. The Constitution was ratified at a time when people were concerned about government tyranny. The Second Amendment, by enabling citizen militias, partially addressed that concern. Today, government tyranny is much less of a fear as it was, and even if it is a concern, individuals owning guns are powerless against the US Military. So, the reasons behind the Second Amendment no longer exist, but Americans still have the right to bear arms. This right, combined with the availability of advanced weaponry, has led to an epidemic of mass shootings and gun violence in our society. Change is needed.

The Second Amendment should be amended to make it clear that gun control is lawful and that gun ownership is not an individual right. This change can be coupled with laws that restore public safety with respect to guns. Examples could include a ban on semi-automatic weapons and requiring education, training, and background checks before gun ownership. By restoring balance to the Second Amendment, we can have a safer society while maintaining personal liberties. One hopes our current political environment will evolve to make this future possible. 



Lucy – Third Amendment

Video

Written Component

In the constitution the Third Amendment was written to go against quartering of soldiers.  This started during the revolutionary war. This amendment implies rights to domestic property and protects citizens from soldiers entering their homes without consent. 

During English wars their government wanted to make sure that at all times they had their military in nice homes being fed and sleeping in a real bed. Their military was not in barracks, and instead was in private homes, inns, ales, or barns. In England there was a law called the Anti-Quartering Act that banned soldiers from quartering in peoples homes and when England expanded to America those laws did not follow.  The first quartering act was published in 1765, which made it so the colonists had to house the British soldiers by finding barracks for them to stay in. If no barracks were available the colonists had to accommodate the British soldiers and find them another place to live like an inn or even their own home. Colonists were very upset and distraught by the huge number of RedCoats in Boston. With the British troops invading Boston, a very poor relationship came out which led to catastrophic and beginning events of the revolutionary war like the Boston Massacre.

The colonists were being rowdy outside of a store and the British troops shot and killed 5 people. These ongoing problems between the colonists and the English led to the Intolerable Acts of 1774 which included a quartering act that made British soldiers be offered even nicer housing from the colonists. The revolutionary war was meant to fight against these unequal laws that were put in place and remove the colonies from under British rule and after the Bill of Rights and the constitution were passed the colonies got freedom from England. 

The motivation for including this article in the constitution is to not have soldiers have to stay in other people’s houses. Having soldiers live with someone if they don’t have a very large house can take up lots of valuable space, soldiers can eat a lot of one’s food and cause someone to starve, and especially if the soldier is of an opposing group can be a major threat to that person because soldiers have weapons. When soldiers would come not only would they be a threat to colonists as an opposition but also by bringing deadly diseases to towns. The newly formed government needed to add this amendment into the Bill of Rights so that soldiers wouldn’t enter peoples homes and cause a ruckus. 

The third amendment connects to the enlightenment philosopher John Locke and his ideas that everyone should have the right to life, liberty, and property. The third amendment is making sure that every American citizen has the right to their own home and that soldiers can’t intrude without consent of the people who live there.