emma

Emma Zuzunaga – Article III, Section 3

Video

Written Component

Article III, Section 3 of the United States Constitution defines treason, as well as the criteria for convicting people of treason, who decides the punishment for treason, and what punishment for treason is prohibited. Treason against the United States is defined as being one of two things, either levying war against, or offering aid and comfort to the enemies of, the United States. To be convicted of treason, two witnesses must give testament to witnessing the same act, or the accused must confess in court. Once convicted, the constitution says it is the job of Congress to decide the punishment of the criminal; however, Congress is not allowed to prohibit the descendants of the criminal from inheriting property from them after their death. 

This clause was created to establish a concrete definition of treason to prevent the government and politicians from using treason accusations to repress and silence political beliefs that did not align with their own. In Federalist No. 10 by James Madison, one of the founding fathers, Maddison discusses the potential harms of faction, especially to a young nation. This sentiment was likely reflected in the writing of the treason clause, which prevents powerful or ruling factions from shutting down those who do not agree with them, which could lead to social unrest. 

The motivation for the treason clause’s creation, the desire to prevent dominant parties from oppressing others and politically isolating them, also reflects the french revolution. The third estate at the estates general was oppressed by the first and second estates because they were consistently outvoted, and were politically isolated because they were eventually locked out of the room as punishment for attempting to stand up for themselves and their people. This led to an extremely violent revolution, which could have influenced the framers to try to prevent similar infighting through this clause. 

The last line of this clause directly opposed Britain’s law, which prohibited the descendants of traitors from inheriting their belongings. 

The 1945 Cramer v. United States case properly illustrates the most controversial aspect of this clause. Cramer v. United States case ruled that mentally adhering to America’s enemies was not the same as offering them aid and comfort, and so that was not given, no treason was committed. On the opposing side of this case, the Government side of the court, who lost, argued that offering America’s enemies aid and comfort should be interpreted loosely to provide a more applicable version of the law which could be used during times of war. Modern scholars argue that the restraints the clause illustrates actually prevent traitors from being charged with treason on technicalities, and treason is now very difficult to prove. 

I believe that the Government’s interpretation of the treason clause is more compelling and should be the interpretation we use because it makes the law much more applicable in a modern context. The Constitution should be a living document, and our definition of treason should be different than the framers of the Constitution. 

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.