third

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. 

Third Amendment – Tess Harris

Video

Written Component

In the years following the Revolutionary war, a new government emerged: the Federal government, established on the basis of popular sovereignty (where the authority is sustained by the will of the people.) However, this new system spread mistrust and skepticism throughout the emergent political parties. The Anti-federalist movement in particular was strongly opposed to the idea of a Federal government, fearing that the centralized form of authority would prevent direct representation for the citizens. The party prioritized individual states’ rights and held the interest of the people in very high regard. If the newly-established Federal government found itself unable to placate the opposing party by failing to address the concerns of the citizens, the new country would be fraught with political turmoil for years to come. Fortunately, a solution was proposed: a series of amendments to the Constitution dubbed the Bill of Rights. The new document enumerated civil liberties: rights to which every citizen was entitled. The Bill of Rights states its purpose outright in the preamble: it sought to “prevent misconstruction or abuse of the [Federal government’s] powers.” The Bill of Rights bridged the gap between citizen and government, mollifying the Anti-Fedarilists by advocating for the rights of citizens.

In order to maintain an amicable relationship with their citizens (and, by extension, the opposing Anti-Federalist party,) the Federal government needed to put a long-standing grievance to rest: the quartering of soldiers at the expense of the citizens. The issue can be traced back to pre-Revolutionary war times;  In 1768, 4,000 troops were dispatched into Boston (a hotspot for patriotism-induced rioting) in order to enforce Britain’s ever-expanding influence over the colonies. This was on the heels of the Quartering Act of 1765, which dictated that the colonists would need to provide housing for soldiers. As dictated by the Quartering Act, “inns, livery stables, ale houses, victualling houses, and the houses of sellers of wine” were annexed, and new barracks were constructed to accommodate for the influx of British troops. Colonists were outraged by this imposition, their indignation at having to co-exist with the source of their oppression culminating in the Boston Massacre of 1770. Their rage even found its way into the Declaration of Independence, as the “quartering large bodies of armed troops” was added to the long list of grievances against Britain. By encroaching on the colonists’ lives and property, the British government was clearly failing to represent the needs of their citizens. The physical and legal measures taken by the citizens indicate a deep lack of faith in their government which created a rift between themselves and political authority.

After the monarchy was overthrown, The new Federal government not only recognized the citizens’ concerns but instated a preventative measure to ensure that the unjust quartering would never happen again. This took the form of the Third Amendment in the Bill of Rights, which states that “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” The Third Amendment is the legal manifestation of years of resentment from the citizens. It ensures that they would no longer be burdened by soldiers, instead possessing full ownership over their property. By inscribing the amendment into law and addressing the grievances of the citizens, the Federal government proved itself capable of direct representation and, in doing so, successfully repaired the schism between citizen and government.

The Third Amendment may not seem relevant in the year 2023, as soldiers no longer pose a threat to the domestic security of American citizens. However, many modern historians have recognized the Third Amendment’s importance as the sole direct mention of civilian control over armed forces. Due to this fact, legal scholars have made the concession that the amendment is important to take into account when considering the government’s response to natural disasters, terror attacks, and problems surrounding the militarization of the police. In any case, without the Third Amendment and the Bill of Rights, the Federal government may not have survived to see modern-day America.

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 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. 

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.