The Third Amendment

"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."

With the 2nd Amendment last week, I didn't want to get too much into original intent or historical context or all of the arguments that come up when people debate constitutional law pertaining to guns. What I hadn't thought about was how interesting that discussion can be when you think of the 2nd and 3rd amendments together.

The 3rd doesn't come up much. I think the last time it was referenced in a major case was in the 70's, and it came up because you had a case where there was employee housing that was taken over by National Guard troops who were coming in due to a strike that also led to the eviction of the employees. It doesn't feel like it would ever come up, but that wasn't always the case.

When the colonists were trying to exert some independence in peacetime, and the mother country was insisting on keeping a standing military present, and that the colonists would pay for the upkeep of that army, that was a source of conflict.

It was an issue in 1765, with conflicts between Parliament and governors and twelve of the thirteen colonies finding ways to subvert it.

It was an issue in 1774 when the new Quartering Act was one of the four "Intolerable Acts" as the tension was getting closer to its eventual eruption into war.

So when the Bill of Rights was written, this was fresh in memory. In that context, the emphasis on the militia in the 2nd Amendment makes sense, and with the 3rd Amendment they operate together to guarantee that our government will not use the military to intimidate or tyrannize us.

Since then we have decided to keep a standing military, and their board and provisions come out of taxes. That is a shift from what was envisioned originally, and there are reasons where it makes sense. That the government will not tell you that you have to accept the soldiers into your home is traditional now anyway, and other laws about the rights of citizens and their homes could act as an argument against it if necessary. It just wasn't always that way.

Sometimes it's interesting to look back and remember.