Third amendment - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

dksuddeth · 04-24-2006, 06:43 PM

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.

Not much has occurred with this amendment, in fact, only one case did I find.

Quote:

Engblom v. Carey, 677 F.2d 957 (2d Cir. 1982) was a U.S. court case decided by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. It is chiefly notable for being the only court decision based on a direct challenge under the Third Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The case was initiated by a 1979 strike by New York State correction officers. While the officers were on strike, some of their duties were performed by activated National Guardsmen. At Mid-Orange Correctional Facility (and other facilities) striking employees were evicted from employee housing in order to house some of the National Guardsmen. Two of the evicted officers at Mid-Orange Correctional Facility, Marianne E. Engblom and Charles E. Palmer, subsequently filed suit against New York Governor Hugh L. Carey and various other state officials.

The decision, rendered on May 3, 1982, established that the National Guardsmen legally qualify as soldiers under the Third Amendment, that the amendment applies to state as well as federal authorities, and that the protection of this amendment extends beyond home owners. The majority stated that the officers' occupancy in the rooms was covered under the legal rules of "tenancy" and was protected under the Third Amendment. There was a minority dissent which stated the officers' occupancy was covered under the lesser protection of employee housing and held that the special circumstances of residency on prison grounds superseded Third Amendment protection. The case was remanded to district court where it was decided in the defendants' favor again, due to the principle that as agents of the state, the defendants were covered by a qualified immunity unless they were knowingly acting illegally. In the absence of previous precedents on this issue, the standard of knowing illegality was not met.

I'm not sure why this was even brought forth because the property of the employee housing would seem like it was government property anyway.

regardless, this was obviously an amendment put in because of examples of the British Crown housing troops among the colonists pre-revolution and was something the founders wanted to prevent happening again.

Willravel · 04-24-2006, 06:48 PM

Am I misunderstanding this, or is the whole thing dependant on "a manner prescribed by law"? Like, "Don't worry, no soldiers will take your home....unless we make a law that says otherwise, then your house is fair game."

Does it include feeding them? I mean I have a futon, and I guess I could get one of those inflatable beds, but shoping for soldiers is like shopping for teenagers: they inhale massive quantities of food. Also, who monitors their behavior? Would they be monitored by MPs or their CO?

I figure I don't have too much of a problem with iso long as they are well behaved.

dksuddeth · 04-25-2006, 01:11 AM

As I said before, this was a limitation put upon the government because the founding fathers remembered the 'quartering act' that the British used in colonial america circa 1775/76. In todays times you could equate this with having FBI agents using your home for surveillance of a suspect across the street.

smooth · 04-25-2006, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Am I misunderstanding this, or is the whole thing dependant on "a manner prescribed by law"? Like, "Don't worry, no soldiers will take your home....unless we make a law that says otherwise, then your house is fair game."

Does it include feeding them? I mean I have a futon, and I guess I could get one of those inflatable beds, but shoping for soldiers is like shopping for teenagers: they inhale massive quantities of food. Also, who monitors their behavior? Would they be monitored by MPs or their CO?

I figure I don't have too much of a problem with iso long as they are well behaved.

Keep in mind that there were two main developing notions of this era:
private property and personal autonomy coinciding with the growth of capitalism &
establishing the security of a budding State without inviting the abuses a standing army can impose on a population

we didn't have the need to expand our borders in the early colonial times nor did we have the economy to support an army so the colonies relied on militia responses to emergencies rather than professional soldiers
much of what you're referring to in regards to whether they'll be well-behaved professional soldiers is at the heart of whether civilians wanted them around in times of peace (not much choice in times of war, hence the stipulation that the legislature will figure out what to do when the shit hits the fan

-- so yeah, the whole thing is contingent on war v. peace time)

The_Jazz · 04-25-2006, 04:35 AM

Wow, sort of a bummer of an Amendment after all the action we had on the 2nd....

I think that smooth has it right with the history of the time, specifically the first 10 or 15 years after the Constitution was ratified. After about 1800, we could afford to house a standing army and keep it under control.

As far as the reference to the FBI in your house, I think that's about the only applicable example, although it is a farfetched one. The way I understand it, the FBI (or any other government agency) can only use your property with your permission and with compensation for any disruption of your business or damage to your possessions. This is an amendment that hasn't had an relavence since Appomatox.

Elphaba · 04-28-2006, 03:13 PM

During the Civil War, homes were taken in support of the military. I wonder how this amendment played out in that time period? Fremont's home (a general?) in San Francisco was taken by the military and it remains the Presidio to this day.

It may not be a much argued amendment, but it would seem that it was violated a number of times.

dksuddeth · 04-28-2006, 04:41 PM

during the civil war era there was basically no constitution.

Lincoln suspended habeus corpus illegally, an act that only congress can do.

Lincoln started arresting and imprisoning anyone that spoke out against the war. He even arrested the chief justice of the supreme court.

He appropriated money for military weaponry while congress was not in session, an act he clearly had no authority to do, yet congress was too afraid of him to stop him.

In terms of constitutional violations, lincoln has more than any three presidents combined, unless you include FDR in that three.

joshbaumgartner · 04-28-2006, 07:40 PM

I believe this amendment was an important element of idea of a military provided for fully by the Congress, and not directly by the citizens, ensuring that we all as citizens share the burden of funding/supporting the army.

It is hard to see there being much conflict over this one in a time in which the government has the money to provide facilities for its troops, and doesn't rely on forcing its presence on unwilling citizens.

04-25-2006, 01:11 AM	#3 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	As I said before, this was a limitation put upon the government because the founding fathers remembered the 'quartering act' that the British used in colonial america circa 1775/76. In todays times you could equate this with having FBI agents using your home for surveillance of a suspect across the street. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-25-2006, 04:35 AM	#5 (permalink)
The_Jazz Asshole Administrator Location: Chicago	Wow, sort of a bummer of an Amendment after all the action we had on the 2nd.... I think that smooth has it right with the history of the time, specifically the first 10 or 15 years after the Constitution was ratified. After about 1800, we could afford to house a standing army and keep it under control. As far as the reference to the FBI in your house, I think that's about the only applicable example, although it is a farfetched one. The way I understand it, the FBI (or any other government agency) can only use your property with your permission and with compensation for any disruption of your business or damage to your possessions. This is an amendment that hasn't had an relavence since Appomatox. __________________ "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin "There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush "We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

04-28-2006, 04:41 PM	#7 (permalink)
dksuddeth Junkie Location: bedford, tx	during the civil war era there was basically no constitution. Lincoln suspended habeus corpus illegally, an act that only congress can do. Lincoln started arresting and imprisoning anyone that spoke out against the war. He even arrested the chief justice of the supreme court. He appropriated money for military weaponry while congress was not in session, an act he clearly had no authority to do, yet congress was too afraid of him to stop him. In terms of constitutional violations, lincoln has more than any three presidents combined, unless you include FDR in that three. __________________ "no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

04-24-2006, 06:48 PM	#2 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Am I misunderstanding this, or is the whole thing dependant on "a manner prescribed by law"? Like, "Don't worry, no soldiers will take your home....unless we make a law that says otherwise, then your house is fair game." Does it include feeding them? I mean I have a futon, and I guess I could get one of those inflatable beds, but shoping for soldiers is like shopping for teenagers: they inhale massive quantities of food. Also, who monitors their behavior? Would they be monitored by MPs or their CO? I figure I don't have too much of a problem with iso long as they are well behaved.

04-28-2006, 03:13 PM	#6 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	During the Civil War, homes were taken in support of the military. I wonder how this amendment played out in that time period? Fremont's home (a general?) in San Francisco was taken by the military and it remains the Presidio to this day. It may not be a much argued amendment, but it would seem that it was violated a number of times.

04-28-2006, 07:40 PM	#8 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	I believe this amendment was an important element of idea of a military provided for fully by the Congress, and not directly by the citizens, ensuring that we all as citizens share the burden of funding/supporting the army. It is hard to see there being much conflict over this one in a time in which the government has the money to provide facilities for its troops, and doesn't rely on forcing its presence on unwilling citizens.