leila

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) 

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.